Leadership in a Complex Adaptive System - Leadership as an Indirect Catalytic Process - Essay Example

Running head: HOW COMPLEXITY SCIENCE AIDS LEADERS Student name: Student number: Course title: Lecturer: Date: Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Complexity science and leadership 3 Leadership in complex Adaptive system 11 Leadership in a complex adaptive system: leadership as an indirect catalytic process 12 Leadership and social movement 14 References 16 Complexity science and leadership The theory of complexity has compelled a thorough re-examination of leadership. This is because much of the theory of leadership used today has been developed using the General Systems Theory (GST). Leadership is an important process in the self-organization. Although this is the case, there s needs to examine the leadership in a closed system and how this leadership is similar to leadership in open systems. In the GST-Open Systems, there is a definition that is offered by Katz and Kahn (1978) leadership is regarded as an incremental influence of others with direction, which has some routine. Their definition depicts leadership to be having similarities and differences between open systems and closed systems. With complexity theory, leadership is regarded to be an influence above others and follows routine compliance. The difference that is found is in the process of leadership. Whereas closed systems do not rely so much on the formal structures of authority. It is indeed true that leadership is independent of the structures of authority. This is attributed to the fact that it has an effect on the process of emergence. Organizations, which are based on complexity science, argue that the goals of organizations should be established with a view of looking at the whole system. Leaders who focus on complexity theory will from time to time work on budgets and encourage relationships, which are provocative in nature. An example is that the leaders who think together will from time to time have ideas from the different systems that have been integrated together. The different systems will come up with ideas and leaders will have to integrate all these ideas to get one meaning out of it. Complexity theory suggests that the organization that is in question should be able to look at the systems that make the whole organization. The different parts of the organization should be analyzed so that the different parts, which are varying, will be looked into so that there is more understanding of these different parts. The solution of a difficult process can be achieved from flexible and simple rules, which are commonly called minimum specifications. Although this is the case, most leaders today believe that progress plans must be in a position to give the best way, which is specified in detail and which is implemented consistently in the same level of detail across the board. Although this is the case, the method fails to take advantage of the innovative talent, which is found in an organization. It also does not allow the predictability of events. There are four things that are provided by the Minimum specifications and which emergence of complex behaviors can be seen. These four things include direction pointing, permissions, resources and boundaries. In the case of leadership of a hospital, there will be the meeting and the dialogue of the leaders so that they discuss of the minimum specifications so that systems can move forward. For many centuries, organizational leadership was based on top down authority whereby the elements involved are treated solely. Due to globalization and technological revolution, organizations are becoming more complex and competitive thus for its survival, fast production of knowledge and innovation is an essential to the leaders. Complexity science guides leaders into the process of solving organization’s complexity challenges and a framework to accommodate change within the organization. The understanding of complexity science enables the leaders to observe the behavior of large collections of simple, interacting units endowed with potential to evolve in future. The concept of complex adaptive system (CAS) enables the leader to be described as emergent and interactive dynamic where he takes a collection of activities make them interact in the that produce new pattern of behavior and general organization’s operation. CAS helps managers in managing knowledge flows within the organization it is a network of interacting and interdependence agents (persons) who are attached together in a cooperative dynamic by an ordinary goal, need and objective. Their structure changeability and multiple hierarchies, which are linked together by an interactive network, enable the leader to be flexible, creativity to solving problems, learn and quickly adapt to changes that occur. Complexity science and its dynamic capabilities has enabled leaders in various organizations to recognize types of leadership such as administrative leadership, adaptive leadership and enabling leadership to be adopted in order to manage and control various resources in the organization. Through complexity science, leaders have realized that adaptive challenges are not agreeable to authoritative fiat but rather require new discoveries, explorations and adjustments made in order to improve the situation. Since an organization is made of various units and resources such as departments, managers or leaders and junior employees, all these aspects are important in existence and productivity within the organization. For these aspects to meet organizational objectives, the leaders through understanding of complexity science are capable of coordinating and interacting them in order to make them cooperate and help in decision-making. Complexity leadership creates a room for the leaders to be able to learn, be creative and have adaptive capacity of complex adaptive systems. This has helped leaders in solving organizational conflicts and in encouraging members of the organization to adapt to changes introduced within the organization and the ability to manage resistance to change. Complexity criticism has been directed at the simplified assumptions and interaction rules of simulations, which offer the leaders the method to explore many possible interactions and emergences over a given period. In human systems, the emergent properties, structures, patterns and entities should be recognized, navigated and encouraged by leaders in order to take advantage of coordinated action. Leaders realize that emergence in complexity science, do not happen by itself and it involves tending and encouragement from its component agents as well as from the leaders. According to this concept, leadership involves those aspects of agent interactions that change the local rules, which govern the future interactions among agents. This enables the leader to identify his or her roles within the organization. The leader performs his roles during the interactions among agents which then lead to change that determines the agent’s relationship in the future. This is mostly influenced by the perceived organizational purpose, strategy or changes in the perceived norms as to acceptable choices, behaviors and communication. Complexity leadership does not rely on specific individuals such as managers, supervisors and other executives in salient roles in the hierarchy thus there are few people to blame or praise for the events in the organization. Hence, leaders ensure all employees are attuned to the qualities and mechanisms that lead to emergent order and to act in the way that help generate those qualities towards the achievement of the organization. By understanding the underlying that give rise to emergent phenomena, leaders can assemble the resources and energy needed to enact emergent structures. The concepts of complexity science develops new lens that highlights the dynamic and ever changing process of leading. Effective leadership ensures the establishment of structure and control in the ways that limit the potential for complexity problems while also enabling requisite complexity within the system as the environment changes. Through complexity thinking leaders are able acquire capability to demonstrate high level of integrity (both moral and ethic conduct), focus on consequences of complexity thinking; formulate strengths to all staff member and ability to lead beyond limits to meet leadership requirements. These capabilities rely on the interconnection, coordination and interdependence of personal attributes, specific tasks and individual skills, which make an organization effective. Diversity and technology has rapidly transitioned and forced changes to business organizations of which has to maintain its competitive advantage to survive and manage effectively. Complexity thinking and understanding aid the leader of an organization in differentiating between representation and diversity; diversity management thinking; learning to become more comfortable with tension and complexity; making a strategic approach and quality decisions in all dimensions of diversity; and learning to accepting and implementing change in the organization. Leaders are developed and made to always be attentive to respond whenever they are called upon by necessity to develop answers to complex challenges of which no solutions or expertise existed. In this case, the strategic and tactical skills of the leader are tested by technology, globalization and rapid pace of change. Thus, the leader obtains knowledge to address complexity challenges through collaborative and interdependent work and encourage interpersonal relation within the organization. The understanding of complexity science has made leaders to perform their leadership obligations and overcoming fear caused by global warming, global terrorism, and powerful influences of globalization and mass destruction. The leaders have been able to tolerate the fear and through complexity thinking have been able to plan, design and implement mechanisms that would protect their organizations from the negative effects of the fear and happening of such events. Leaders are capable of planning for future and develop a learning organization through complexity understanding and thinking. They are guided how to balance risk and opportunity; accept uncertainty as mandatory; generate ways to build momentum and noting transitions; and maintain freedom act whenever opportunities come their way for the benefit of the organization. For a leader to focus and plan into the future, he or she requires complex experience, creative and strong-minded risk taker. Thus, the organizational competence depends on complex thinking leaders who obtain skills, attributes and knowledge to make excellent and bold decisions in the face of uncertainty (Albert et al., 2000). Complexity science has developed leaders who are embedded in a complex interplay of numerous interacting forces. Complexity leadership enables leaders to interact with administrative superstructure to coordinate complex dynamics and enhance overall flexibility of the organization. He or she is capable of enabling adaptive functions across levels of the hierarchy, and allows different agents involved within the organizational hierarchy to interact with its internal and external environments and given freedom to propose their views and recommendation towards change management and general organizational operations. This has also aided leaders in managing the innovation to the organizational interface where they overcome social and political pressures imposed by the organization by changing them towards its advantage and promote the idea through adaptive network and risk their position and reputation to ensure its success (Albert, & Whetten, 1985). Also through enabling leadership, together with adaptive and administrative leadership, leaders are able to decide which creative outputs are appropriate to make a move forward decision towards innovation. With this understanding, leaders are capable of formulating creative decisions in the processes of giving directions, training, assigning tasks, during recruitment and in implementing innovations and technology to improve the functioning of the organization. Complexity thinking enables organizational leaders to look more across the parts and the whole system when focusing on such activities as policy formulation and general operations. Involving the whole organizational system to participate in operations planning and in decision making makes it easier in arriving into a solution and also creates awareness to all employees about the new policies and performance objectives set in the organization. This motivates junior staff as the feel appreciated when involved in the decision making process. It also increases their productivity since they are motivated towards the accomplishment of the organizational goals (Eoyang, & Berkas, 1999). Complex science understanding has enabled organizational leaders to recognize knowledge workers since they may know more than the leaders themselves. The leader does this by encouraging their passion; value their working time; help them in building their network; enhance their ability; support their dreams; and support them in expanding their contribution at work and other areas. Complexity science has brought about factors, which create professional work. They include, job insecurity; pension and health care insecurity; differentiation in compensation; global completion and emergence of new technology. The era of complexity thinking has given organizational leaders new characteristics so that he is capable of handling problems in a creative direction. The leader is an integrator because through complexity understanding, he/she raises various perspectives, connects networks them and applies creative skills in order to establish new directions and solutions to a problem in the organization (Cronbach, 1975). The organizational leader is made the integral driver of change and technological innovations due to complex systems adapted through the complex science. He/ she plans for change, implements it and accepts the anticipated change within the organization. The leaders also gains knowledge and complexity skills to encourage, educate and methods of gradually introducing change within the organization to overcome resistance, stress and conflicts among the employees. The idea of complexity understanding has abolished the role of a leader as an authority giver to his followers and now in a complex organization, the leader is involved into a participative dialogue with his subordinates towards the achievement of an organizational goal (Denison et al., 1996). Leadership in complex Adaptive system The theory has really uplifted re-assessment of leadership. However, much of this was established under the theory of General systems. Leadership, nevertheless, is known to be critical in the self-organizational process and leaders may therefore play a role of designers and context setters of experiences related to learning. It is also imperative that further assessment be carried out to establish the relationship between leadership in an open system and in a CAS. The model of organization under GST-Open Systems treats leadership as an additional pressure over and above conformity with regular trend. This understanding brings out clear differences and similarities between in its relevance to CAS and Open Systems. However, leadership remains a sway of others above regular conformity. It is worth noting that leadership is independent of, and to greater extends contrary to the structure of authority. This is because it may sway the self-organization processes (Boal, & Hooijberg, 2000). The discrepancy in process shows that leaders are qualitatively diverse. They dole out as tags and sway other processes and persons. They recurrently provide leadership in temporary capacity less of any authority. This is because they may come up with leadership roles, or may agree to perform roles delegated to them. Tags are however, action and outcome oriented and are not interested in positions or individuals (Den Hond et al., 2004). This is because, an individual may at one point act as a leader and share the roles in tandem. Because of this leadership is thus used to refer to catalytic and indirect processes under an organization, which can be undertaken by people in tandem. This is in opposition to a leader, which may be misconstrued to mean that certain positional factors and individuals are more pronounced than others (Dutton et al., 1994) are. Advice is hereby given that to discern leadership encompassed by CAS one needs to understand the new CT based concept on organizational structure. This is because it is mathematically and verbally hard to understand because of complexity of the system. Gell-Mann brings out the difference between crude complexity and effective complexity as the later is measured from the other based on the length of the tersest account of the system. From this theory, we learn that smaller organic organizations are more effective than bureaucracies that are mechanistic. It should be understood that the exploitation of the interdependencies of variables is the prime blueprint tool in a CAS. This may however sway leadership variables since they are distinctively different from the existing principles. It may also attempt to pressure on unambiguous strategy, which consequently may immobilize or facilitate adaptation and emergence. Leadership may therefore affect indirectly the variables via the interceding variables of social movements and organizational identity. Leadership in a complex adaptive system: leadership as an indirect catalytic process Leadership and organizational identity Self-similarity is a crucial feature of complex adaptive system whereby it portrays a difference based on scale change. This is apparent in the physical world in things such as fracals. The success of self-organization is very dependent on the aid the system offers to the independent activity. This is through giving a firm frame of reference. Going as per the social identity theory, it is understood that social identity is a personal view of oneness to the identification of an organization. This happens when one’s trust about an organization turn into self defining. Organizational identity is also that move towards the analysis of collective level (Dooley, & Van de Ven, 1999). Organizational identity models the organization and its retorts by swaying the understanding of the events and the array of actions that come to happen. This majorly center on influence on resource allocation, issues, and can be inspirational (Bettis, & Prahalad, 1995). Organizational identity therefore is the prime deficit on its adaptive capacity thus; it is associated with organizational adaptability. This is where the organization must be embedded in the hearts and heads of its members. A too rigid identity will demoralize and allow egotism and be deficient in reflexivity. On the other hand too flexible can be a recipe to problems, it may encourage a hyperactive adaptive organization and permit the substitution of image by substance. This may therefore result into a non-adaptive muddled system. A remedy therefore is the strength of the members on the ownership of the organizational identity; the collective identity may not be matched by the individual belief. The second remedy is the measure of singularity or pluralism portrays the sway on organizational identity by the stakeholder. Finally, the instability or stability degree, a fir identity is described by a few sways and a great measure of stability will result into a stationary non-adaptive system. On the contrary, feeble adaptive systems will record a number of sways and a too low measure of stability will result into a muddled non-adaptive system (Berle, 1968). Leadership and social movement It is suggested that social movements can aid in discerning leadership in a CAS. These are arrays of attitudes and actions for dynamic essentials of a society. They related to networks of groups entrenched on collective identity that engage in mass action to bring about change. However, they differ in measure of extremism of their tactics and positions. The success of social movement thereof is based on the petition of the ideology of the movement and its ability to amass the necessary resources (Dutton, & Dukerich, 1991). The social movement that e\we are selecting to demonstrate leadership in CAS is one that which support community gardens natured voluntarily by members of the community , usually established on neglected plots of land. Whereas government agencies play the role of formal organizations, that aid the movement. This in most cases takes place at local levels or grass root levels and local leadership is integrated in the success of the movement. Community garden is characterized by lots of benefits at various levels of the system, demonstrating distinctive features of the complex systems. They promote socialization and oneness in the community. These also, promote the uplifting of the image of the society and reduce the level of crimes. The illustration therefore gives as an insight of how social m0vement can proof to be legitimate in terms of the aid of organizations that are formal, yet on the other hand still rely on the emergence of bottom up processes. They are crucial and rely majorly on tag leaders less of authority but much of sway in their communities for their dissemination. Leadership eases this dissemination. Leadership in a complex adaptive system using appropriate research methodology This theory just like complexity theory is coming in with the new models of leadership and organizational makeup; it also encompasses processual research methodologies and nonlinear that needed for advancement of blueprint and testing of models of CT nature. References Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Organizational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 13–17. Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Shaw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 8 (pp. 263-295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity Theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216–232. Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. Baker, P. L. (1993). Chaos, order, and sociological theory. Sociological Inquiry, 63(2), 123–149. Barker, J. R. (1998). Managing identification. In D. A. Whetten, & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations (pp. 257–267). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Barney, J. B. (1995). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120. Bartel, C. A. (2001). Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: Effects of community outreach on members' identity and identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 379–413. Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1990). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press. Bedford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. American Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639. Berle, A. A., & Means, G. C. (1968). The modern corporation and private property.Brace andWorld, New York: Harcourt (First published in 1932). Bettis, R. A., & Prahalad, C. K. (1995). The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 5–15. Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2000). Strategic leadership research: Moving on. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 515–549. Bouchikhi, H., & Kimberly, H. R. (2003). Escaping the identity trap. Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 20–26. Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Management Science, 2(3), 197–208. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking Complexity Theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1–34. Carley, K. M. (2000). Organizational adaptation in volatile environments. In D. R. Ilgen, & C. L. Hulin (Eds.), Computational modeling of behavior in organizations: The third scientific discipline (pp. 241–268). Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Carmin, J., & Balser, D. B. (2002). Selecting repertoires of action in environmental movement organizations: An interpretive approach. Organization and Environment, 15(4), 365–388. Cohen, J. L. (1985). Strategy or identity: New theoretical paradigms and contemporary social movements. Social Research, 52, 663–716. Cohen, M. (1999). Commentary on the Organization Science special issue on complexity. Organization Science, 10(3), 373–376. Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific inquiry. American Psychologist, 30, 116–127. Crossley, N. (2003). Even newer social movements? Anti-corporate protests, capitalist crises and the remoralization of society. Organization, 19(2), 287–305. Daft, R. L. (1992). Organization theory and design (4th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. Den Hond, F., & De Bakker, F. G. A. (2004). Influencing corporate social change activities: Exploring social movement organizations' tactics in an institutional context. Paper presented at the 2004 Academy of Management Meeting, New Orleans, LA, August. Denison, D. R., Hart, S. L., & Kahn, J. A. (1996). From chimneys to cross-functional teams: Validating a diagnostic model. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 1005–1023. Dooley, K. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1999). Explaining complex system dynamics. Organization Science, 10(3), 358–372. Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 517–554. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263. Eoyang, G. H., & Berkas, T. H. (1999). Evaluating performance in a complex adaptive system (CAS). In M. R. Lissack, & H. P. Gunz (Eds.), Managing complexity in organizations (pp. 313–335). Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Read More