A633.3.4.RB - Complexity Science

Reflect on your own organization's strategy or an organization that is familiar to you.  How has it evolved over time? Discuss each stage of development and how feedback and strategy formulation have changed over time. Consider the next steps in your company's evolution and describe what it will look like in 10 years and where you will be.

Despite working at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for almost 8 years, I have seen many changes throughout my organization.  This should come as no surprise since the VA serves an enormous Veteran population and has needed to constantly adapt to the complexities of an ever-changing environment.  According to the VA (n.d.) “the first consolidation of federal Veterans programs took place August 9, 1921, when Congress combined all World War I Veterans programs to create the Veterans Bureau”.  Federal Veterans programs were consolidated again in 1930 and officially became a federal administration when President Herbert Hoover signed Executive Order 5398 to "consolidate and coordinate Government activities affecting war veterans”.  I presently work within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) which has evolved considerably from the first federal soldiers’ facility established for Civil War Veterans.  Today, the VHA is the largest of the three administrations that comprise VA and continues to meet Veterans’ changing medical, surgical and quality-of-life needs.  For example, VHA has opened outpatient clinics, established telemedicine, and other services to accommodate the needs of a diverse Veteran population.  

Addressing the needs of the Veteran has been a consistent priority since the VA’s infancy.  Therefore, it has been vital to adjust strategies accordingly to achieve its primary function.  The VA has primarily functioned as a traditional organization structured on specialty (function) and hierarchy (rank).  I have witnessed somewhat of a transition towards more of a cross-functional matrix organization, yet I see the push-pull struggle unfolding before me.  It seems the VA is currently stuck in this transition where there is increased cross-functionality but also an increase of hierarchies.  Therefore, I do not see a full transition to a cross-functional matrix any time in the near future.  On a brighter note, feedback has evolved from the traditional “one way process of boss to subordinate towards a more fluid and 360 degree approach” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 28).  Leadership took notice how important feedback was from all directions (employees at all levels, customers, etc.) and implemented more effective feedback systems.  For example, one such system is a competition similar to the television show Shark Tank where innovators and inventors pitch their ideas to prospective business leaders for large scale distribution to the public.  In the VA’s case, employees at any level pitch their idea to VA leadership to institute any idea that will provide exceptional value to the organization.  This type of feedback system was nonexistent until recently and has already proved to be an invaluable tool towards improving the VA.  

Another evolution in the VA has been its strategy to achieve goals.  The biggest change in strategy I have noticed has been the increased availability of services to the Veteran.  In the past, the Veteran had to find a way to get to the nearest VAMC (Veterans Affairs Medical Center) to receive service.  This could prove to be especially difficult for the Veteran in a rural area.  Now, there are numerous CBOC’s (Community-Based Out Clinics) available throughout the US for Veterans who are not located near a major VAMC.  These CBOC’s make making it easier to provide.  According to the American Legion, “these clinics provide the most common outpatient services, including health and wellness visits, without the hassle of visiting a larger medical center. VHA continues to expand their network of CBOCs to include more rural locations, making access to care closer to home” (Community-Based Outpatient Clinics, n.d.).   

It is difficult to predict the next steps of the VA’s evolution and where that evolution will where I will be as a result.  I say this because like some other organizations, we struggle with continuity.  We have many people in leadership in “acting” or “interim” roles because of so many personnel changes.  I still believe we are an exceptional organization when considering the sheer volume of customers and complex environment we face each and every day.  However, the VA must find a way to address continuity throughout the organization and especially those in leadership positions.  It is a challenge to try and follow a direction or strategy when those following must constantly have to react to direction changes imposed by leadership’s vision.  For example, the VA developed a strategic plan for Fiscal years 2014-2020 led by then VA Secretary Shinseki.  This plan outlined and addressed three goals:  Empower Veterans to improve their well-being, enhance and develop trusted partnerships, and manage and improve VA operations to develop seamless and integrated support.  These are some tangible and important goals to achieve.  However, Shinseki has since left and was replaced by Secretary Bob McDonald who implemented his own strategy throughout the VA.  Now, we currently find our organization read for another leader with his own strategy because of the recent elections.  It looks like the new Secretary of the VA will be David Shulkin and we again wait for another strategy to be implemented.  Three leaders in three years will not help with a consistent organizational strategy.  I learned something important this week in not trying to have a strategy that is set too far in the future.  This is similar to how Nokia developed and implemented a strategy based on nothing changing for many years ahead.  This was a costly mistake.  I want to make only short-term plans for my future since I know things can drastically change in an instant.  I still see myself working in the VA system since I am passionate about the organization and its mission.  I am committed and feel I have an allegiance to my organization.  However, as far as where I will be in the future really depends on career opportunity to really know my direction within the VA.  

References:

About VA. (n.d.).  Retrieved from https://www.va.gov/about_va/vahistory.asp

Community-Based Outpatient Clinics. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.legion.org/veteranshealthcare/outpatient

Department of Veterans Affairs FY 2014-2020 Strategic Plan.  (n.d.).  Retrieved from https://www.va.gov/op3/docs/strategicplanning/va2014-2020strategicplan.pdf

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Farnham, Surrey, UK: Gower.

A633.3.3.RB - Complex Adaptive Systems

Find a company which reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) and reflect in your blog what the implications are for you and your present organization (or any organization you are familiar with). Identify what you believe are appropriate actions to move your organization forward.

Watch this Martin-Reeves Video and discuss the implications of strategy on your organization.  Why strategy, why now, and how could this discussion positively impact your organization?

Morning Star and St. Luke’s operate very similarly in the way both organizations are managed.  Or shall I say not managed?  Let me explain.  Traditional companies are structured based on specialty (function) and hierarchy (rank).  However, we have seen an evolution from functional silos or departments within a hierarchical organization functioning independently of each other to a cross-functional matrix (Obolensky, 2014).  Yet, the matrix organization struggles as “new opportunities and needs are ‘force fitted’ into an old matrix structure” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 25) due to increasing complex environments.  As a result, we are now seeing more of a shift towards a CAS (Complex Adaptive System) organization with more of a focus on clarity, flexibility, and transparency.  A CAS organization operates in a more fluid and organic manner when compared to the traditional and matrix organizations.

The thought of no bosses, managers, or hierarchy was a difficult concept for me to process.  However, I realized that a company where all employees are equals can actually be successful after researching both companies.  Not just successful, but leaders in their markets.  St. Luke's is an advertising agency with no bosses and completely owned by its employees.  It made sense that St. Luke’s could be a market leader, even though it was difficult for me to break my traditional mindset of what an organizational structure should be.  I say this because of the specific market St. Luke’s operated within; a market based on creativity in providing ads to companies.  But would this structure work within a manufacturing environment?  I was skeptical since I have experience in large-scale manufacturing plant operations.  However, Morning Star proved me wrong and revealed how they are also highly successful at running a self-managed company.  Morning Star operates multiple tomato processing facilities where “no one has a boss, employees, negotiate responsibilities with their peers, everyone can spend the company’s money, and each individual is responsible for procuring the tools needed to do his or her work” (Hamel, 2011, p. 51).

One of the major similarities within a CAS is the effect on empowerment.  This really rattled my way of thinking because I have always held the belief that people can truly be empowered when given the opportunity.  Andy Law, cofounder and chairman of St. Luke’s, provided his thought on empowerment and it really changed my perspective.  Law (2000) mentions how empowerment means someone has to have the power to give power to another which creates a flaw in the purpose of being empowered.  Additionally, empowering still does not necessarily equate full ownership.  For example, “in an organization built on the principles of self-management, individuals aren’t given power by higher-ups; they simply have it” (Hamel, 2011, p. 54) at Morning Star.  These companies demonstrate Obolensky’s view of strategy development within a CAS.  Obolensky (2014) states, “ the level of ownership of the strategy will be dictated by the amount of involvement” (p. 30).  Therefore, employees in these organizations are taking responsibility through full ownership whilst having the ability to strategize and adapt more rapidly to their respective environments. This will give them a major advantage in the long run.  

Zappos is another company that reflects Morning Star and St. Luke’s image of a CAS.  Zappos recently changed its structure to a self-organized, self-managed company and instituted an emerging practice called Holacracy.  According to Holacracy.org, “Holacracy is a comprehensive practice for structuring, governing, and running an organization. It replaces today’s top-down predict-and-control paradigm with a new way of achieving control by distributing power. It is a new “operating system” that instills rapid evolution in the core processes of an organization” (Zappos Insights, n.d.).  Tony Hsieh, chief executive, sees this move as a strategy to eliminate internal bureaucracy.  Hsieh “sees bureaucratic structure as the big hurdle to any company's ability to transform itself and stay relevant as the market shifts” (Cunningham, 2015) similar to Morning Star and St. Luke’s.  Having an adaptable strategy is vital to an organization’s success. Martin Reeves (2014) discusses how companies need to have great strategies now more than ever before when considering the rapidly changing and complex markets.  He describes strategy as getting a job done and winning competitively in a particular situation (TED, 2014).  Reeves goes on to say there is no such thing as the best strategy but strategy needs to match the situation.  Rather than wasting time planning, it is more effective to experiment, select, scale up, and iterate when trying to adapt to a rapidly changing market.  This approach can be and should be applied to most organizations, including my own.  

Looking at the intricacies of a CAS has given me another perspective on how an organization can function.  The majority of companies today are still operating within a traditional hierarchy and matrix structure.  I have learned there is not always one way of accomplishing something and it is better to have a Tao approach with an ‘and/or’ mindset instead of an ‘either/or’ when looking for a solution.  Traditional or matrix type structures may work for some organizations, whereas a CAS may just be the answer an organization is looking for.  It may be difficult to flip an incredibly large organization upside down and transform it into a CAS.  Take most government organizations for example.  I have experienced the traditional structure in the military where it is extremely hierarchical and I think it is necessary for that application.  I now work within another large government organization; the Veterans Health Administration.  The biggest problem I see with remodeling any government agency to being self-organized is that the employees can never have full ownership.  A government agency simply cannot be privately owned and operated.  This creates a big issue with instituting a CAS.

References

Coutu, D. L. (2000). Creating the Most Frightening Company on Earth. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 142-150.

Cunningham, L. (2015). Tony hsieh got rid of bosses at zappos -- and that's not even his biggest idea. Washington: WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1738324527?accountid=27203

Hamel, G. (2011). First, Let's Fire all the Managers. Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 48-60.

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Farnham, Surrey, UK: Gower.

TED Institute. (2014, December 22). Martin Reeves: Your strategy needs a strategy. Retrieved January 28, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE_ETgaFVo8&feature=youtu.be

A633.2.3.RB - Butterfly Effect

Based on this week's reading, reflect on complexity science and theory in organizations and the butterfly effect (Obolensky, p.66). Identify 2 examples where “small changes yield large results” in your organization. What are the implications of complexity theory for you and your organization and how can you use this to drive improvements?

Leadership models are constantly evolving and we are seeing a shift from the typical top-down hierarchical structure towards one more fitting for a knowledge-based environment.  Uhl-Bien, Marion, McKelvey (2007) state “complexity science suggests a different paradigm for leadership - one that frames leadership as a complex interactive dynamic from which adaptive outcomes emerge” (p. 298).  I was anxious to delve into this week’s reading because it involved the butterfly effect.  I was also intrigued as to how the butterfly effect would relate to leadership.  I recalled the butterfly effect had something to do with a butterfly flapping its wings in one part of the world and affecting the weather in another part of the world.  Edward Lorenz discovered this butterfly effect or “Lorenz’s Strange Attractor” through conducting a weather experiment in which small changes within a complex system produced very large differences to what would have otherwise occurred (Obolensky, 2014).  The connection to leadership became clear.  A small change within the complex system of an organization can have various positive or negative outcomes depending on that change.

The concept of catalytic mechanisms is one which involves small changes to company policy which yield large results (Obolensky, 2014).  One such example occurred by simply changing a form within my organization.  Purchasing agents in my organization must possess a signed form to purchase on behalf of the government.  A new form is required any time there is a change to information (purchase limits, name changes, accounting updates) or a new purchasing agent is employed.  The form was in a format in which many were not familiar and had extreme difficulty using.  Add the many layers of approval necessary to complete the form and it was the epitome of an inefficient process.  The process took numerous weeks when it should have taken days.  Morieux (2011) states (organizational complicatedness (the number of procedures, vertical layers, interface structures, coordination bodies, and decision approvals)” (p. 84) has increased and negatively impacts productivity and employee engagement.  Leadership in my organization listened to the many complaints and changed the form to a more user friendly format and removed many approval layers.  This increased value through increased efficiency and decreasing the wait time for purchasing agents to do their job.

Another example of a small change yielding a large result was when we made in a customer service process.  More specifically, we changed the way we communicated with our internal customers which resulted in a positive change to our metrics.  My peers were having compliance  issues with their station metrics (individual Veteran Affairs Medical Centers) related to a few particular reports, yet I never had any problems.  My supervisor contacted me and asked how I managed to keep all my metrics compliant.  I told him all my processes and he noticed where the major difference lied.  I was always polite in asking my customers to take action for their discrepancies.  Additionally,  I would only send emails to the necessary individuals the information pertained to. Conversely, my counterparts were sending one message to everyone at one time and tell them what action they needed to take.  They would publicize the delinquencies and the customers did not respond well.  As a matter of fact, they responded by not responding at all and eventually began to ignore emails.  My supervisor recommended my processes to my peers and all of our metrics became compliant.  

I was once told that enthusiasm is contagious.  That stuck with me and I used it as a motivation tool as a supervisor and within a team environment.  Similarly, leadership behavior is contagious and Obolensky (2014) suggests that a leader’s behavior will soon be repeated.  Therefore, it is vital for leaders to understand how even the slightest change to their behavior can have a disproportionate effect (Obolensky, 2014).  It is common to find employees within my organization performing their duties independently when permitted.  For example, there have been some days when I go to my office, close my door and only open it again for lunch and to go home. I can agree that this can improve focus on the task at hand, however I also think it can be a detriment to shared knowledge and insight.  My organization is considered a complex system where individuals serve a function, yet all functions within have a connection somewhere.  The buttons and thread simulation revealed bifurcations where an underlying pattern suddenly changes (Obolensky, 2014).  A good example is how smokers in an organization took random smoke breaks and socialized with each other on these breaks.  A study revealed they were more productive than non-smokers because they would share problem solving information during their breaks.  This example stresses the value of employee interaction and how the bifurcation theory applies to improving employee knowledge and insight.  

References

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). Gower.

Morieux, Y. (2011). Smart Rules: Six Ways to Get People to Solve Problems Without You. Harvard Business Review, 89(9), 78-86.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298-318. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002

A633.1.2.RB - Leadership Gap

Has your own attitude to leaders changed in your life, and if so how?

My attitude toward leaders has changed greatly as I have matured in life.  I used to blindly equate authority to leaders and paid no mind to the numerous elements of leadership.  My philosophy was if someone was an authority figure then they must be a great leader. I used to think leaders were more capable than others and was happy to follow (Obolensky, 2014). Authority and leadership was synonymous to me. All authority figures were considered leaders and I had the utmost faith in their knowledge, skills, and abilities.  I never doubted these authorities were always the best for the job or position.  However, as I matured I began to realize that humans have flaws and that means people make mistakes.  This realization, combined with my experiences, has led me to believe that not all people of authority are knowledgeable, skillful, or have the necessary abilities to be great.  I have also found this to be true regarding leaders.  Furthermore, I learned to differentiate authority and leaders.  One does not have to be in a position of authority to be a leader.  Leaders are found everywhere. I am also now more cognizant of the composition of a great leader and my interest of this composition has continued to grow.  Another aspect my attitude has changed is how I have lost a bit of faith in leadership.  My trusting nature has been eroded through witnessing those in leadership positions fail on many levels.  

If we take as a starting point the attitude to those in authority/leaders as held by your grandparents, and then look at those attitudes held by your parents, and then by you, and then by the younger generation, is there a changing trend? If so, what is it?

Two words come to mind when I think of the changing trend of our attitudes to those in authority/leaders:  Fear and respect.  I think years ago people had some element of fear towards authority because those times were simply tougher.  Those in authority could get away with treating others unfairly.  Now, it seems like most of that fear has faded because people are so protected.  It feels like we live in a more sensitive society in which everyone wants to take legal action for everything.  Respect came to mind instantly when I pondered this question and I had to chuckle when I read the textbook because I am obviously not alone in that thought.  Obolensky (2014) states, “many bemoan the fact that the younger generation seems to have less respect for authority than the older” (p. 3).  

Why do you think that this has occurred?

I think this has occurred because evolution and change is inevitable.  Humans evolve, change, and adapt to the environment.  However, I think the growth and dependency of technology is a major contributor.  Technology has changed the way humans interact and has rapidly redefined social norms.  On the other hand, maybe I think this change has occurred, but nothing has actually changed.  Let me explain.  It is possible that respect is continually viewed by the older generations as being degraded by the younger generations.  The cycle never ends.  So it is not that respect is constantly fading in our culture, but more that the perspective of the older generation always sees a more selfish and disrespectful younger generation.  We would live in a state of anarchy if respect truly eroded away to nothing slowly over time.

Additionally, while we live in a world with more information about leadership and leadership practices why is it that we have an apparent gap in the quality of our leaders and how do you think we can close this gap?

Information is invaluable.  We have instant information about leadership available to us now more than ever.   However, that does not necessarily mean more information will equate to perfect leadership practices.  For example, what if children were only given a book about how to learn how to ride a bike?  It is not a practical application of information because children need the actual experience and assistance to learn to ride a bike.  They have to physically ride the bike and fall a few times to become proficient.  The same goes for leadership.  A person who is only highly educated does not make a great leader.  Traits, experience, training, opportunity, and other factors all play a hand in a quality leader.  Sometimes leaders are put in a position because of who they know and not because of their qualifications.  Those instances degrade the quality of leadership considering there are more than likely many other better leaders qualified for the position.  Additionally, leaders are human and fallible.  They will make mistakes no matter how much information they have at their fingertips.  It is inevitable some leaders will make poor decisions because they are people.  I think bridging the gap in the quality of our leaders can only be achieved through a combination of training, leadership traits, and experience.  Unfortunately, developing, creating, and discovering a quality leader takes time.  Yet, many organizations do not have the time or the patience to wait.

References

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Gower.