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
No comments:
Post a Comment