Kleindorfer (2001) discusses decision-making in complex environments and how “compressed decision time and complexity are swamping the orderly flow of information and authority, characteristic of traditional decision making” (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001, p. 116). He also describes three decision-making approaches for dealing with multiple stakeholders within complex environments. These approaches are specifically put to use when navigating data-rich environments, navigating systemic complexity, and navigating multistakeholder and environmental complexity. For example, in data-rich environments “managers are using tools such as data mining and data warehousing to harness this avalanche of data in their business decisions” (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 121). And, while data is an element driving complexity, “interactions across multiple system boundaries surrounding a particular decision context” (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 122) is another factor increasing complexity. Computer models are being created to navigate systemic complexity and simulate these interactions. These models are built with three components in mind: “data, the model itself, and some means of optimizing or evaluating alternative decisions in the context of the model” (Hoch et al., 2001, p. 122). These models have proven to be invaluable to decision-making within complex environments but also have their limitations. The models are only as good as the information input into them and considering perfect information is not possible, the decision is ultimately left to the decision maker. The final challenge lies within navigating multistakeholder and environmental complexity. The interactions of multiple stakeholders increase complexity and therefore “co-opetition” or cooperation amongst competition is a necessary tool required to help synergize such a complex environment.
Having to navigate multistakeholder and environmental complexity is of particular interest to me because I interact with multiple stakeholders in a complex environment on a daily basis. I also believe there are many areas to improve within my VA (Veterans Affairs) organization. My primary goal in changing any VA process would be to implement a bottom-up strategy utilizing the employee stakeholder voice. Organizations have traditionally been modeled using a top-down structure. This means the leader, say a CEO for example, is at the top of the organization’s hierarchy making independent decisions to communicate down to the employees. As with anything, a top-down, or autocratic leadership approach has its advantages and disadvantages. However, an alternative is to flip the structure upside down and use a bottom-up approach. The top-down structure has been the only structure used in the VA since its inception. Nonetheless, Robert McDonald, then Secretary of VA, aimed to change the top-down approach and implement a bottom-up structure a few years ago.
Fortunately, Robert McDonald had such authority and the bottom-up structure began to be gradually implemented. The organization began to witness programs established to reach out to everyone in the organization for ideas. Some ideas received attention and were implemented throughout all VA facilities nationwide. We began to see the culture shift from an independently operated approach to each facility towards more of a national collaboration to make each facility operate more effectively and efficiently. Changing to a bottom-up structure had a substantial impact on the organization’s strategy. For example, Lister (n.d.) suggests “in a top-down strategic management model, ownership or high-level management personnel determine objectives and how the rest of the business will work toward accomplishing those objectives” (para. 2) and input from the bottom is practically nonexistent. Conversely, strategy within a bottom-up structure becomes more of a collaborative and shared effort of the entire workforce despite the leader having the final decision for implementation. However, the success of implementing such a bottom-up strategy is based on the assumptions that everyone wants to contribute to solving problems and that management has the ability to listen, summarize, support, and understand (Obolensky, 2014).
Implementing a bottom-up strategy also has its implications for leadership. First, a change to the leadership approach must coincide when switching from a top-down to a bottom-up strategy. A leader who is used to an autocratic leadership style will have to make significant adjustments for a bottom-up structure change. Additionally, leadership is not found just at the top of an organization, it is occurring throughout the organization. This is because a bottom-up environment is about all employees having an opportunity to exercise their leadership abilities and to have the freedom to express their creativity. For example, Lukens (2016) suggests bottom-up leadership provides an advantage “by getting many people’s input, it crowdsources wisdom and information, allowing you to draw on the best ideas that are out there, rather than just dictating a certain task for someone to perform” (para. 5). To further demonstrate, the article How to Lead When You’re Not the Boss (2009) discusses how it does not take formal authority to find opportunities to lead and describes some methods to lead when not in charge such as engaging others and providing feedback.
I witnessed a major change within my organization because of the bottom-up structure. Employees felt their ideas and suggestions fell on deaf ears but were now confident their opinions were not only heard but valued. Additionally, mechanisms were put in place to help all employees facilitate these ideas and suggestions. However, Dr. David Shulkin replaced Robert McDonald as the Secretary of the VA in February 2017. The organization has not experienced such an emphasis on the bottom-up strategy that Robert McDonald envisioned. Although there has not been an official announcement as to whether or not Dr. Shulkin wants to revert back to the top-down approach, we as an organization are experiencing less and less of a focus on the voices of the employees.
References:
Hoch, S., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
How to Lead When You're Not the Boss. (2009). Harvard Management Update, 14(3), 1-2.
Lister, J. (n.d.). The difference between top down and bottom up strategic management. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-top-down-bottom-up-strategic-management-25957.html
Lukens, M. (2016, February 11). The false choice between top-down and bottom-up leadership. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/3056551/work-smart/the-false-choice-between-top-down-and-bottom-up-leadership
Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Farnham, Surrey, UK: Gower.
No comments:
Post a Comment