Who Needs Leaders
Duration: (3:32 min.)
Source: YouTube
Play the chaos game with a group of people (see Complex Adaptive Leadership (Obolensky, 2010) Chapter 6, or watch the above video.)
Create a reflection blog on what this exercise meant to you and how it impacts your understanding of chaos theory, include the implications that this has on strategy.
In Obolensky's video "Who Needs Leaders" (2008), the exercise involved twenty-five men who are asked to pick two unidentified people in the room, and place themselves equidistant between the two. Once the instructions were provide each participant had to decide how they would execute the instructions. This was a very intriguing exercise to watch. My initial guess was that it was going to take at least 10-15 minutes to achieve the goal. I thought there would be chaos in competition, and that people would not be able to accurately split the difference between their two points without messing someone’s else’s distance; perhaps they would not care about their fellow man attempting to achieve the same goal, almost creating an endless chaotic loop of competitors. It took just under a minute; this was done without communication between participants. Reflecting on why this was the case, several reasons came to mind.
Obolensky provided a quintessential example of what is needed in place of traditional leadership when complexity runs high. In other words, "What enabled you to complete a highly complex task?" (2010, p. 96). Obolensky identifies his eight principles and how their inter-relatedness can produce positive outcomes, which can change the perception of chaos theory. He states in the example that the more complex the situation and task, the less directive traditional leadership is needed. The individuals became a system working together towards a final state seemingly disorganized, but did so in a very rhythmic manner. They were like a well oils machine that troubleshot until they came to a concluson.
The implications this exercise can have on strategy and chaos theory exemplify the need for tolerance of ambiguity and chaos. Each person had a goal and it depended on all of the other individuals and that is what created their path. By allowing them to exist as part of the Four + Four dynamic model, they were balanced through the connections to the other principles, like unambiguous feedback.
Operational feedback allows individuals and/or teams to measure their contribution against the whole organization, and transparency is seen as a way to avoid tensions becoming critical between oligarchy and polyarchy (2010, p. 124). Behavioral feedback can be on the organizational or personal level.
The biggest emphasis in utilizing the Four + Four principles (2010, p. 125) is that every organization will find their own unique way of expressing them, which in part reflects the 'dynamic' aspect of the principles. Having leadership that is capable of fully understanding the implications the principles can have will help in promoting Complex Adaptive Leadership in organizations.
The last question the mediator asked was, “What would have happened if we had put one of you in charge?” As the group laughs, there is an element of understanding for how absurd it must be when leaders cradle their employees and disallow them the trust and freedom to act, as many of us do. Or, perhaps the mediator was noting how much longer it takes to try to manage individuals to get what one needs versus allowing a group to tackle the issue. Either way, the group achieved better success together than if they would have working as an individual. This activity is a testament that leaders can “let go” and allow individuals in the organization to self-organize.
References:
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Burlington, VT; Gower Publishing Company. Obolensky, N. (2008). Who Needs Leaders. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E
No comments:
Post a Comment