Complex Adaptive Systems - Essay Example

Significance of Complexity Science in Leadership Introduction Complexity science is a subject that is wide and relevant to any discipline whatsoever. It is applied in all sciences, whether pure, applied, social sciences and even in medicine. Complexity science is also directly applied in computers and IT. However, the fact that the word “complexity” is included in the phrase does not necessarily mean that the system is a hard and an intricate one. It does not have to include many aspects for it to qualify to be classified in complexity science; all it basically needs to have is the sense of organization, customization and manifestation. Today, complexity science is used in business and other managerial disciplines (Wadhawan 2010). Complexity science is literary everywhere, and it is an aspect that is commonly shared among systems that have nothing to do with each other. For instance, totally different systems like the ant colony system and the global economy system share this in common; complexity science (Evans 2010). All these and other systems fall under the category of complex adaptive systems, hence the reason why they all have complexity science features in common. A system that qualifies to be a complexity science system is one that has many aspects in it that are all attached at some common point, and these aspects are not static; they are dynamic, meaning that changes in the environment around them does not interfere with the complex system, but these elements adapt according to the changes involved. All these elements are coordinated and they exist as a system, meaning that none is detached from the other and none is independent of the other elements in the system (Bogg 2007). Adaptability and Evolution Complex adaptive systems have a distinct quality, in that time is taken for the elements in the system to learn the system, to adapt to it and to evolve accordingly. This is seen quite obviously when some systems are observed keenly, because a certain pattern is noted. For instance, the system of flying birds is an obvious adaptive complex system, because they fly and migrate at certain times of the year, and they fly in certain patterns in the sky. Birds are creatures of instinct, and they do not have verbal communication like human beings, yet they are able to maintain such an adaptive system flowing over the years and over generations of other birds of the same species (Uden 2004). The ecosystem is another complex adaptive system that can be a great tool if studied well in leadership. This is a system that is comprised of many elements living together and adapted to the environment. Of all these elements, none whatsoever is independent of others, and none is detached from the other. These complex adaptive systems are quite similar to common systems in the human world (Goethals 2006). For instance, customers all have a common and specific behavioral pattern and trend in the market all over the world, even if they never get to meet each other. The consumer market in one part of the world will exhibit the same behavioral trends as a consumer group of another part of the world that is totally far away from the first. Also, observation on the way human beings relate to each other in communities is a good indicative that the study and understanding of complexity science is an indispensable tool for leaders of all calibers (McMillan 2008). Computer scientists and IT specialists have in the past developed virtual models that show the application of complexity science and complex adaptive systems in everyday life. This application boils down to the industry and commerce sector, for instance the decision made in every step of the supply chain, and the trends in the demand and supply curve. In the past, business people only used to use computer algorithms to create replica situations of what goes on in the real business world. These algorithms allowed them to create “fake” global business situations so that they would use the outcomes given by the algorithm to predict and control what will happen in the real business world (Castellani 2009). Today, the study of complexity science by leaders, managers and business people has taken this to a new level; no computer algorithms are needed now to predict and control trends in organizations and business, but simple use of models and analysis is enough to achieve even better results (Meindl 2007). Leaders in all areas including business, healthcare and marketing among others are finding it necessary to have deeper understanding of complexity science so that they can understand the system of human beings, which is full of adaptability, creativity and evolution. As a matter of fact, complexity science has become the leading system of organization used in modern leadership, and leaders who have understanding of complexity science have been seen to have better ability and skill to cope with the human systems, hence having more effective leadership (Samet 2009). Complexity Science and Non-Equifinality Complexity science and complex adaptive systems are very reliant on historical patterns. The fact that these complex adaptive systems exhibit patterns that can be traced into history seems to be quite an obvious thing that does not seem to get the attention of many (Spillane 2007). This explains the reason why managers and leaders tend to import principles and practices from another organization into theirs, because of the assumption that whatever works in organization A will also work perfectly in organization B if it is imported directly without any alterations being made to it. Marketers and advertisers also use the same strategy, and it is a common scenario for marketers to duplicate a strategy that worked in one market into another market and believing that it will yield the same results. This is the principle and concept of equi-finality, which is very common in conventional science (Lewin 1999). The assumption of equi-finality posits that every strategy will work towards a point of equilibrium regardless of where it originated from and where its destination is. This assumption tends to ignore the history and the origin of the strategy, and any malfunctioning is ignored and it is rarely associated to the history of the origin of the strategy or system (Holland 2000). This is very common in leadership of schools and similar institutions, where teachers and school heads are known to be fond of ‘importing’ ideas, strategies and systems from other schools, simply because it has worked for them, without caring to trace the origin of this system. Therefore, when this system does not work as perfectly as it does in the original school practicing it, the failure is blamed on the students or teachers onto whom this system is being practiced. Every hitch in the system is blamed on the resistance of the subjects of this system (Morgan 2004). Equi-finality is not applicable in complex adaptive systems. However, both the traditional and the complex systems have one thing in common, that they both rotate relative to a certain point, which can be referred to as a pivot point. This is the only similarity these two systems have. The traditional system moves about the pivot, which is fixed (Stacey 2000). The movements of this system are often rhythmic and predictable, hence the reason why the attainment of equilibrium is predicted with certainty. However, this is not the case with the complex adaptive systems; the pivot of these systems is not fixed, but it is located within a set boundary. Therefore, though it is possible to partially predict the boundaries, it is not possible to predict the shapes of the patterns that will emerge when this systems run. It is therefore impossible to draw a graph in advance for the complex systems (Lissack 2002). This is the reason why complex adaptive systems are known as non-linear, because their patterns are not known to form in certain predictable forms. The attractor in the system is what determines the nature of the patterns and trends in the system. The attractor is basically the source of energy or the source of drive in the system. For instance, in the scenario of a school as given above, one system may work for a certain school because the students like the school head implementing the system. This same system may not work as expected in a different school where students loathe their school head. The driving force, therefore, for the pattern formed and the order that emerges is the love or hatred for the one implementing it (Stacey 2001). Useful Complexity Science Applications Isaac Newton, a renowned scientist, is known for the major scientific contributions he made especially in physics, when he came up with the different mechanical laws of motion and gravity. His scientific contributions became widely accepted all over the world, and people eve started using these laws in other areas that are not directly scientific, like social sciences, management, biology, medicine, cultural issues and it was even incorporated into the systems of education in most countries (Hazy 2007). At some point, the use of these laws became somewhat common to a point where the weight these laws carry started being overlooked. It reached a point where people stopped being actively conscious of using and applying these scientific principles in everyday living. However, a run through of these laws in their applied form can create better awareness of complexity science in leadership and day to day living (McNair 2005). One of the summarizations of scientific laws is the cause and effect principle. This is the principle that posits that nothing, whatsoever, happens spontaneously without having a causative agent. Also, people do not examine a situation as a whole, but they instead try to look into the minute details and elements of the situation, which is exactly according the scientific principle of reductionism (Venerable 2009). The principle of reductionism is also used in organization and leadership, and this is seen when leaders organize the groups they lead into smaller groups for better management and productivity. Also, leaders use the energy laws in leadership, in that they portray understanding of the principle of energy that posits that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can only be converted from one form to another. This principle is commonly used by leaders when they work their followers in a direction that favors maximum output with maximum efficiency (McGill 2004). Leaders can use the understanding of complexity science to understand the functioning of any organizational structure. First and foremost, leaders have to shift their thinking from that of the understanding of seeing organizations as machines for production. This system, known as the linear and mechanical system, is an outdated one only used in the past by leaders. This system has been known to be responsible for most failures in leadership, hence creating the need for a better system also known as the non-linear complex adaptive system. The linear model of thinking is way too low and incompetent to deal with the complexities of the ever-changing world today. Without the understanding of complexity science, it is impossible for leaders to be effective and to lead the complex systems of human beings well (Popolo 2011). One great understanding of complexity science is that governing emergence and development. Development and growth of any organization cannot be possible if the elements of that organization are not in a position to mutually affect each other. This understanding is important for leaders, because they strive to ensure that the people they are leading are handled in such a way that they mutually affect and influence each other in a way that can lead to the emergence of new levels in the organization (Shaw 2002). Leaders can ensure this by seeing to it that the groups they lead are made to use team work as the main context in which they learn. Another way through which this can be ensured is by facilitating dialogue; not just any kind of dialogue but open and radical dialogue. When leaders facilitate this kind of dialogue, they cause the complex system of the organization to have emergence because of the fact that dialogue allows the human beings in the organization to function as one, hence creating a force that is much larger that that of each single human being in the system. Leaders should therefore do away with the systems where dialogue is fake, comprised of committees in which the channels of communication are full of bias, prejudice and hidden schemes (Marion 2008). The “butterfly effect” is also a useful tool in the understanding of complexity science by leaders. Leaders ought to have the mentality of effecting small changes when they want a much bigger effect from the changes effected. This means that leaders should use pilot plants and pilot experiments in their organizations before going on into the big projects. When leaders have new ideas that need to be implemented into a bigger portion of the organization, they need to first use a small portion of it to test the system before implementing it into the majority. This way, corrections can be made to the system when it is in the pilot stage rather than correcting mistakes in the whole organization (Greenwood 2005). Organizational leaders also need to adapt the principle of complexity science that posits that emergence of systems and procedure is guaranteed, but there is no guarantee of what these systems will be like. When this principle of complexity science is adapted by leaders, they will stop having specifically set strategies for establishment of order and start creating the correct and conducive conditions that can nurture good emergence of systems that are desirable and helpful. Better results can be seen when leaders just create the right environment for solutions to evolve rather than striving to design how these systems will emerge (Amann 2007). For instance, the development of an embryo to a baby in the womb is a very complex phenomenon, yet the mother does not have to crack her head trying to design the growth of the baby. Rather, the mother just creates the right conditions for emergence of the right order of systems in the baby by eating the right foods, wearing the right clothing, doing the right exercises and reading the right information. Therefore, leaders should have a vision for their organizations, but they should not become too involved in forcing strategies, order and systems to work for attainment of these goals (Morrison 2002). Another complexity science principle that is very useful in leadership is the principle of greater diversity for a richer order. As mentioned earlier, it is guaranteed for order to emerge, but the nature of the order and system is not guaranteed or predictable. Therefore, this means that it is possible for a leader to allow the order to emerge naturally by creating the right environment for emergence, but still obtain results that are average. The main focus is not merely on emergence of order and systems, but the emergence of quality and rich systems (Cooper 2006). A good example is the scenario of a hungry and weak person; when one is hungry and weak, all they need to do is eat something edible, and they will be full and strong again. The right condition for their fullness and strength if fullness of the stomach. However, fullness of the stomach is not all that is really desired; nutritional health is also of key importance. Therefore, the hungry person will go for food that has the right variety and combination such that apart from being relieved of hunger, the person will also have attained better health and wellness. Therefore, leaders need to use the principle of diversity for richer emergence in their organizations by employing diversity of cultures, personalities, gender, ages and backgrounds for better results. Teams comprised of a diversity of people give richer emergence of systems and order, because of the combination of the various strengths associated with each diverse characteristic (Steger 2004). The closure of the gap of time and space is another concept in complexity science that is useful in leadership. It is a concept that leaders of organizations can use to make processes more effective in their organizations. This concept is used to seal the gaps by cutting out the intermediaries between the leaders and the led people, hence creating a better environment for efficiency and effectiveness in systems. Leaders can minimize the process through which information gets to those they lead by introducing systems into the organization. For instance, they can introduce a computer network in which the relevant people can access to find the information they need instead of going to the records office to get the information in hard copy (Gunter 2001). Also, a system can be employed to counteract the effect of another inevitable system that creates a time or space gap. For instance, a good example is the introduction of debit cards. According to the CEO of the visa electronic system, the credit cards were a good idea, but they caused creation of a huge time gap in transactions because of the time the was taken between the time of the credit card purchase to the time when the owner of the credit card actually pays the debt off with his credit card company. Therefore, the debit cards were introduced to counter this effect, in that while the credit card people use money before they have it, the debit card people will have paid in advance for what they have not used (Haskell 2009). Conclusion Leaders need to understand complexity science so that they will know how to plan despite the fact that they are also changing. Leaders will also get to know their role in organization, even when the complex adaptive systems seem to be self organizing. Cost reduction and betterment of quality can be easily achieved with the understanding of complexity science and the underlying principles. Complexity science is not meant to disqualify any other management and leadership strategies, and therefore an understanding of complexity science is important to leaders so that they will know when it is the right time to use the conventional strategies, when it is important to use complexity science to complement their conventional leadership strategies and when complexity science should be applied fully without integration of other strategies. References Amann, W. 2007. Managing complexity in global organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Bogg, J. and Geyer, R. 2007. Complexity, Science and Society. Radcliffe Publishing. Castellani, B. and William, F. 2009. Sociology and complexity science: a new field of inquiry. New York: Springer. Cooper, C. The Blackwell encyclopedia of management: International management. New York: Blackwell Publisher. Evans, R. 2010. Seven Secrets of the Savvy School Leader: A Guide to Surviving and Thriving. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Goethals, G. and Jones, G. 2006. The quest for a general theory of leadership. London: Edward Elgar Publishing. Greenwood and Lissack, M. 2005. Managing Complexity in Organizations: A View in Many Directions. New York: IAP. Gunter, H. 2001. Leaders and Leadership in Education. New York: SAGE. Haskell, R. 2009. Reengineering Corporate Training. New York: IAP. Hazy, J. 2007. Complex Systems Leadership Theory: New Perspectives from Complexity Science on Social and Organizational Effectiveness. New York: ISCE Publishing. Holland, J. 2000. Emergence: from chaos to order. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lewin, R. 1999. Complexity: life at the edge of chaos. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lissack, M. 2002. The interaction of complexity and management. London: Greenwood Publishing Group. Marion, R., and Uhl-Bien, M. 2008. Complexity Leadership: Conceptual Foundations. New York: IAP. McGill, M. 2004. The smarter organization: how to build a business that learns and adapts to marketplace needs. New York: John Wiley and Sons. McMillan, E. 2009. Complexity, Management and the Dynamics of Change: challenges for practice. New York: Routledge. McNair, C. 2005. The Profit Potential: Taking High Performance to the Bottom Line. London: John Wiley and Sons. Meindl, J., and Shamir, B. 2009. Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: a tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl. New York: IAP. Morgan, G. 2004. Images of organization, 2nd Edition. London: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Morrison, K. 2002. School leadership and complexity theory. London: Routledge. Popolo, D. 2011. A New Science of International Relations: Modernity, Complexity and the Kosovo Conflict. London: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Samet, R. 2009. Long-Range Futures Research: An Application of Complexity Science. 4-Scene Development Corpora. New York: Prentice Hall Publishers. Shaw, P. 2002. Changing conversations in organizations: a complexity approach to change. London: Routledge. Spillane, J. 2007. Distributed leadership in practice. Columba: Columbia University, 2007. Stacey, R. 2001. Complex responsive processes in organizations: learning and knowledge creation. London: Routledge. Stacey, R., and Griffin, D. and Shaw, P. 2000. Complexity and management: fad or radical challenge to systems thinking? London: Routledge. Steger, U. 2004. Mastering global corporate governance. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Uden, J. 2004. Organization and Complexity: Using Complexity Science to Theorize Organizational Aliveness. London: Universal Publishers. Venerable, G. 2009. Managing in a Five Dimension Economy (Gpg) (PB). London: IAP. Wadhawan, V. 2010. Complexity Science. London: Lap Lambert Academic Publishing. Read More