A633.5.3.RB_Reflections on Chaos

I have to start off by stating I think some of the people in the video changed who they selected in order to not have to walk around forever getting within equal distance of the two they had originally selected. I find that people tend to do that when they are looking for the easiest way out; unfortunately that does have a tendency to happen often in most real-world situations; we as humans like to find the quickest, shortest and or easier way out of situation regardless of how it impacts others. When people make those sometimes rash decisions it hurts not only individuals or a group but instead in this scenario it hurts the organization as a whole. Another way I saw this was people were selecting who they were closest to in both proximity and or if they knew the individuals previously – these are two things that have to be addressed in the business world. They do say it is not what you know it is who you know but who you know may not always be the best choice.

The exercise in the video shows that human behavior is unpredictable similar to Chaos Theory. Chaos Theory states that small changes now can affect the bigger picture in the future and the exercise in the video shows that small changes, selecting two people and then trying to get within an equal distance to them affects the bigger picture and events that will take place down the road (Chaos Theory also includes the Butterfly Effect, Fractals and other areas).

In this exercise, the participants were not allowed to speak to one another but instead position themselves equal distance from the two they selected. Where is the communication? You cannot have a strategy if you don’t communicate with those involved. This exercise in my opinion would never work and it also shows me how major organizations and or corporations get into trouble when they fail to communicate their strategy ideas with everyone involved.  Because my undergraduate studies focused on communication, it baffles me how people still feel the need to keep things from one another especially when they are trying to better an organization. I also believe there are many other factors that affect strategy which is include the structure of the strategy as well as the key players but for this example and exercise the key contributing factor in my opinion was the lack of communication.

A633.4.3.RB_Changing Dynamics of Leadership

The way organizations make decisions are changing, I find these changes to be for the better and help the organization to constantly move forward. Looking back, historically changes and or decisions were made from top down which mean that those making the changes were not aware of the implications that were taking place below. In order to bypass those issues, upper-management is now finding that making changes from all levels leads to happier work environments and a more prosperous organization.

I work for a relatively progressive organization and the organization as whole is constantly trying to put new ways of doing business for both the staff/faculty as well as students. I know that it can be difficult to allow decisions to be made from anything other than the traditional top down but it doesn’t mean that it cannot be done. It also can be hard to see how changes for the betterment of an organization can come from the middle or the bottom of an organizations hierarchy.

I would be willing to say that 75% of changes that have effective long term success rates come from those who are the middle to bottom of the hierarchy and I say that for many reasons. It has been my experience that upper management implement changes that will never affect them so they do know understand the repercussions. These types of changes seem to do more damage that good. I also think that you have to see who is on top to try and think like they do to better understand what changes they are trying to implemented. If you haven’t been in the trenches you don’t know how to help those people; leaders need to know their employees in order to make positive change from the top down.

How does this affect strategy? This method would squash the way most leaders feel about strategy because most leaders would find that this would infringe on their “bigger” plans but realistically this is the best way to conduct business. Take the idea of strategy and shift it so that you are strategically making changes based on what those who are going to be affect by it think/feel/say about it. No longer are you being strategic for your betterment but now you are being strategic in the betterment of those who will be affected by the change. To me it is all about how you approach strategy and how you approach strategic change.

Speaking to the idea of how to be strategic in how you approach change, I relate these ideas to my current position. I am constantly working with faculty, whom of which are notorious for being extremely finicky. You have to do a lot of stroking and caressing to get what you need and I am fine with that; this is where I have to be strategic. I cannot approach each faculty member the same way or my plans would blow up in my face and I would be dealing with sassy instructors so I strategically put feelers out there to see how I can affective change their way of thinking in order to be successful in a strong course development; it is all in the approach. I like to think of this as a dance, the Waltz preferably… not all partners will know how to move but once you find the right flow, the dance goes off seamlessly.

So what is indicative to these new ways of handling strategic change within an organization? First, organizations have to understand that the times are changing and no longer are people sitting back and letting upper management run the whole show. Organizations now understand that their best assets are not sitting at the top but are positioned all throughout the organization and their opinions matter. Second, organizations are beginning to recognize the need for diversity and in order to do that they have to go to the people. Those understandings help to unify the organization which leads me the third point which is organizations want to be better not only from an industry standpoint but also in the eyes of their employees. In the grand picture, employees are what sell the organization. They are the faces of the company and they are out there representing it all times. When someone asks you, “what do you do you and where do you work” the next question they ask is, “do you like your job” and the best way for organizations to keep good employees is so manage equally from within and create changes that start from the middle and work their way out. Top down management is out the door and new waves of thinking are now being created.

A633.3.3.RB_Complex Adaptive Systems

In order to understand another organization that is considered a CAS organization, we must correctly define what a CAS is and what those organizations consist of. Complex Adaptive Leadership (CAS) is defined as, “the term meant to reflect a dynamic organization where teams are formed, perform, and then disappear as the need arises… the foundation of this dynamic are clear people processes and policies, sound and flexible information and communication technology systems, and transparent, inclusive and flexible strategy development processes” (Obolensky, 2010). It can also be stated that these types of organizations are also defined as special cases of complex systems and are often defined as a “complex macroscopic collection” of relatively similar connected micro-structures. These micro-structures are formed in order to adapt to the changing environment, and increase its survivability as a macro-structure (the bigger picture).

I would like to take a step back in that I think I am looking at this concept too tightly. I have been trying to write this blog for the better part of a week now and I think it was because I was too tightly caught up in finding this type of organization I am supposed to write about but if a CAS is about an organization that has teams that arise and fall when needed to perform certain tasks then I think most organizations have those types of principles. When certain tasks need to be performed committees are created in order to evaluate a process or the creation of a new idea are those not a part of a CAS?

I know for a fact that the organization I work for relies heavily on groups appearing and disappearing in order to complete certain needs for organizational success but if I have to select one company or a strain of similar companies take for instance Johnson & Johnson. This organization has been around for decades (multiple decades at that) and they are comprised of a traditional hierarchy but they customer service based organization needs the input of others in order to create new products; this is where the teams are formed. The dynamics come from upper management who pull their resources together to create these teams of people who know what their one purpose is and when that purpose has been fulfilled the group or team dissolves and can be reborn again in a different way.

Being complex doesn’t mean it has to be complicated. I think sometimes we take those two and make them one although they are two separate ideas. I have found that any organization can be a CAS if there is flexibility within the infrastructure.

Obolensky, N. (2012). Complex adaptive leadership, embracing paradox and uncertainty. Gower Publishing Company.

A633.2.3.RB_Butterfly Effect

I am a firm believer in the Butterfly Effect because I believe what we do now, the “small changes that yield large results” and can change a chain of events.  This is also a similar idea to the book called The Secret by Rhonda Byrne which states what you say or do is put out into the universe and what is out there cannot be taken back and can forever change future events.  These types of phenomenons take place because people do not realize what they are doing and how their actions now can and often do have a lasting effect on the future. 

Below I am going to provide 2 examples of how small changes and yield large results in the organization I work for.

Example 1
Recently the organization that I work for did a massive infrastructure restructure that unified Headquarters and the field locations; centralization. This centralization was a small change in the bigger picture of the organization.  The organization as a whole has been going through many new changes in order to create a stronger university for the students, faculty, and staff members.  In this restructure, the organization removed the regional boundaries and eliminated 3 of the 4 regional offices which resulted in the layoffs of 20 employees.  Although this decision was made in order to create a central unit and end the disconnect between the field staff and headquarters staff, what ended up happening yielded large results.  Due to the nature of how this information was presented, the field staff felt as though all locations were going to be closing and everyone was going to be laid off.  This massive eruption of emotions from employees made not only field staff and faculty members uncomfortable, it also made headquarters uneasy as well.  I believe if there was an email sent out first explaining what was taking place with a follow-up virtual meeting to explain the information, staff, and faculty wouldn’t have felt so blindsided. As of now the decision to close to the regional offices and remove regional boundaries still has left people feeling uneasy but slowly everyone is coming around.  This is one of those times in an organizational restructure where patience is necessary.

Example 2
To piggyback on the previous example, post implementation of the organizational restructure, a new and critical position was created.  The Director of Training and Professional Development was asked to step in and establish training modules for the field in order to unify the Director of Academic Support trainings; now the DAS’s would be directly reporting to that position at the headquarters level. This would be a relatively simple project and would help to continue to build on the idea of unity but unfortunately it is slowly but surely turning into the sight of an atomic bomb.  When creating a new service, one must understand how that service will affect others, how will it change the current process, and will it do more harm than good?  It is starting to look as those it will do more harm than good.  Due to the nature of the organization, each aspect of the DAS training process affect many teams; in some cases the effects on those teams are worse than necessary.  As of now the DAS training modules are still in development and I am trying to make sure that these are a positive and not negative implementation for the university but I cannot tell at this early stage.

One little step, change in the wind or drop of rain can change the world.  The Butterfly Effect is defined as the phenomenon whereby a small change at one place in a complex system can have large effects elsewhere, e.g., a butterfly flapping its wings in Rio de Janeiro might change the weather in Chicago.  This phenomenon is everywhere and will never go away this means that we have to understand each step we make as that one step can change the world before we even realize it.