A633.7.3.RB_LeaderFollowerRelationship_LouBeldotti

A633.7.3.RB

Leader Follower Relationship

For this reflective blog I am asked to complete the exercise at the beginning of chapter 10 and use the scoring table at the end to assess your responses.  My answers are highlighted in yellow.

Reflect on what this assessment means in terms of you as a leader and your relationship to your followers.

• Has your thinking changed over the course of the past six weeks, if so; why, and, if not; why?
• 
  
• What is the significance of this in the context of your future leadership goals and objectives?

A QUICK TEST TO OPEN YOUR MIND – WHERE ARE YOU ON THE MAP?

This should not take long. Assume you are the leader of a team of followers. It does not necessarily have to be the team you are currently in, if you have one. Imagine you are in the circumstances described. Read the possible responses. Do not think too long about which one you would choose. Circle/tick one of the responses that you think you most likely would do (as opposed to could or should!). Use the scoring table at the end to identify your scores.

1. Your team is faced with a change of circumstance for which they are poorly experienced and unprepared. They don’t want to adapt to the new context.

a. Tell them that they must adapt and show them clearly what needs to be done.

b. Inform them about the benefits that the change will bring (including the new skills they will gain from the training arranged), and point out the cost of not adapting.

c. Ask them how they propose to deal with the new situation and give what they say serious thought.

d. Keep an eye on the situation, but do not interfere.

2. A subordinate of yours is keen to move ahead. However, he does not know how to implement the new procedures put in place. He is concerned as performance might suffer.

a. Point out how the new procedures will improve both the situation and the team’s environment, and how he will benefit.

b. Seek his views as to how the new procedures should be implemented and consider his recommendations.

c. Do not get involved yet, and wait and see what happens.

d. Show him clearly how the new procedures can be followed and ensure more detailed training is done if he needs it.

3. A difficult state of affairs has occurred, but despite him having the ability you have detected a distinct lack of willingness by one of your subordinates to deal with it.

a. Ask him what the problems/barriers are and seek his recommendations for solutions.

b. Let him work it out for himself and do not interfere unless performance suffers.

c. Inform him that you have detected his lack of willingness and that this is unacceptable and he must deal with the situation.

d. Point out penalties for failure and offer him a small bonus to ensure success.

4. New changes are underway. Your motivated team is coping well, but you are concerned that performance may suffer without further guidance.

a. Do nothing yet – monitor the situation and be prepared to step in if performance or motivation begins to decline.

b. Remind them of what the new changes are and the expectations of how the team should act.

c. Reiterate how the new changes will benefit all concerned and what the penalties of failure could be.

d. Arrange a team meeting to voice your concerns and ask them how they can sustain their current performance.

5. Morale is high despite a rapid change of direction. However your team does not yet have the new skills they will need and performance is starting to suffer.

a. Show them how things have got better since the change of direction.

b. Ask them how they propose to deal with the change of direction.

c. Do not get involved, but wait for the training programme for the team to deliver.

d. Take action to let them know precisely how they need to change working practices and quickly bring forward the training course.

6. A new change is needed and one of your subordinates is depressed about it – he does not want to change or upgrade his skills to do the new work. You have already arranged a training course to deliver the new skills that the team will need.

a. Ask him to identify what the barriers are and how he proposes to overcome them.

b. Be careful not to do anything unless the situation gets worse.

c. Reiterate what the new changes are, that there are no other options, and that training is arranged for him.

d. Stress the benefits of the new training course and how the changes will improve the situation and help avoid a worsening situation.

7. A change in procedures needs your team to adapt. They have the skills to deal with the new system but one of your subordinates is resisting the need to change.

a. Avoid confrontation and see if she changes her attitude.

b. Take firm and swift action to tell her what is needed in clear terms.

c. Demonstrate how the new procedures have simplified her work and indicate the down side of non-compliance.

d. Ask what the barriers to change are and how she can overcome them.

8. Challenging targets are being met with hard work and morale is high. Your team seem happy but you are worried that one of your subordinates might need more help.

a. Tell her how she can best meet the targets and how to improve.

b. Remind her of the benefits that will accrue when the targets are met, and suggest further improvements.

c. Ask her how performance can be improved further and what needs to be put in place.

d. Leave her to continue her good work and relax a bit more.

9. Your highly skilled team have been efficient and performed well, but you have seen signs that motivation is beginning to drop and this will soon affect performance.

a. Arrange a fun offsite which includes a workshop to identify problems and opportunities to improve the situation.

b. Tell them they need to improve motivation and in clear terms what the expectations are.

c. Do nothing yet – monitor the situation and be prepared to step in if performance is affected.

d. Point out the benefits currently achieved as well as the penalties which may ensue if performance suffers.

10. Your team are doing well and seem happy to meet the stretch targets that you have set them. However, you are worried that one of your subordinate’s performance might suffer without further motivation because of a recent family bereavement.

a. Keep an eye on him but do not interfere yet and be less worried.

b. Remind him of the consequence of failure and negative outcomes which may arise as well as the benefits which will accrue if he succeeds.

c. Tell him of your concerns and inform him again of what needs to be done.

d. Ask him how motivation can further be improved and consider his recommendations.

11. Your team is highly motivated, but a rapid introduction of new systems has seen their productivity suffer and this will soon affect morale.

a. Get an expert to show them how to use the system in a customised training session, and identify further training needs.

b. Seek their recommendations for how better to use the system.

c. Reiterate how damaging it is not to use the system in the correct way, point out the benefits and arrange a training session.

d. Let them work it out and do not get involved.

12. There is a pressing need for the team to change to a new system and the change management team has arranged a training course for them. However, one of your subordinates does not want to change nor attend the course.

a. Inform her of the benefits of change and the training she will soon receive, as well as the cost of not changing.

b. Wait until her performance is affected further before taking action.

c. Arrange a longer meeting with her to work out solutions to her problems.

d. Tell her she has to change and that she will do the training course.

13. Performance is good and your team have continued to show their usual high motivation. You feel that you are not contributing enough as their leader.

a. Introduce a new bonus scheme to improve morale and demonstrate your involvement.

b. Do nothing and be careful not to interfere.

c. Tell them that you wish to play a more active role and increase the frequency of their reporting to you.

d. Arrange a team off-site to have some fun but also to identify improvements and how to achieve them.

14. An older subordinate of yours wants to embrace the changes which are planned, but she feels daunted by the demands for the new skills which will be needed.

a. Reiterate how the new changes will improve things, and how the changes will help avoid the downward trend leading to job cuts.

b. Don’t intervene yet and wait to see how she will really cope.

c. Tell her about the new skills needed and say she will be trained quickly if she needs it.

d. Ask her how she proposes to overcome the barriers to the new changes.

15. The external situation has changed rapidly and your team have been left behind, unable to cope. They feel they should quit.

a. Wait until someone actually quits before taking action.

b. Inform them of the dire consequences of quitting and that training support is available for those that need it.

c. Make everyone feel involved and seek their recommendations.

d. Act quickly and firmly by saying quitting is not an option, and show them in detail what needs to be done.

16. Your subordinates are highly qualified and are well capable of doing a good job. But they have not performed as well as they could and do not seem keen to do so.

a. Tell them clearly what the targets are and how they can best achieve them.

b. Ask them why performance is not as good as it can be, and seek their recommendations for how to improve the situation.

c. Do nothing yet – monitor the situation and be prepared to step in if performance is further adversely affected.

d. Remind them of the benefits if targets are met.

(Obolensky, 2014)

            After completing the test I used the scoring matrix to produce the following results:

                        • Strategy 1 (S1): Tell. (Low People, High Goal). 7

                        • Strategy 2 (S2): Sell. (High People, High Goal). 3

                        • Strategy 3 (S3): Involve. (High People, Low Goal). 6

                        • Strategy 4 (S4): Devolve. (Low People, Low Goal). 0

            Based on these scores, it seems as if I am conflicted.  According to Obolensky, Strategy 1 is:  “This does not have to mean being dictatorial or in any way unpleasant. And sometimes it is needed – one hardly tells a new employee where the coffee machine is by saying ‘Well, where do you think it could be?’ Showing someone how to do something is a ‘Tell’. Telling them the information they need so as to get on better is also a ‘Tell’. Training people is also a ‘Tell’. Tell can include either the what, the how and/or the why. As a general rule if you are having to ‘tell’ someone both the what, and the how and the why then something is amiss. The ‘Why’ is always best used as a ‘Sell’ (see next bullet point). So that leaves the ‘What’ and the ‘How’. Again telling someone both is not as good as telling one of them. If they know the what, but do not know how to achieve it, then telling the how is natural. However, one needs to be aware of the level that the person is at in relation to level 5 followership. The ‘What’ is more about ‘content’, and the ‘How’ is more about process. The accent of leadership is moving more towards process.” (Obolensky, 2014)

            I see myself as a Strategy 1 leader.  I’m not overly commanding unless I have to be.  I am very direct, however.  I do find myself to be a people person which leads me to think that is why I am also a Strategy 3 leader.

            According to Obolensky, Strategy 3 is: “This is used either when the leader does not know or chooses to hold back to allow others to discover the solution. A variety of involve strategies exist ranging from asking an individual ‘What do you think?’ to running small teams focused on problems, to large scale mass intervention techniques.  The strategy is good for when either the time is not pressing and/or there is a good opportunity to educate and develop people’s knowledge and skills further. It is more of a ‘pull’ strategy.” (Obolensky, 2014)

            I consider myself flexible and do ask for input from my subordinates.  I enjoy engaging people to think on their own.  I believe the combination of the two strategies makes me a more rounded leader.

            I believe that the past six weeks has helped me revisit leadership skills that I already had in my wheel house but had not used over the past six years since retiring from the U.S. Army.

            In my current position as an Army JROTC instructor, I do teach Cadets about leadership but I do not use many of the tools that were available to my while on active duty.  Moving forward, I will maintain what I am currently doing.

Reference

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. (2d ed). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing

A633.6.4.RB_CircleofLeadership_LouBeldotti

A633.6.4.RB

Circle of Leadership

In this reflective blog, I am asked to critically think about how strategy is formulated in my organization and include both upward and downward leadership. Now, considering all of the readings in this module and the learning exercises regarding upward and downward leadership; reflect on the diagram (figure 9.5; below) "the vicious circle for leaders".  Does this happen in your organization?  What are the effects on the organization? Create a new circle that would promote strong followership and even leadership at the lower levels of the organization.  Ensure that this reflects the actions and involvements of all significant departments such as; Sales, Marketing, Finance, Accounting, Operations, Marketing, and Distribution.

            My organization is a public High School.  Moreover, I am an Army Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) Instructor.  I am my own department.  Yes, JROTC is an elective but the impact of my course is far reaching across the curriculum.  Let me explain.  I teach approximately 170 Cadets.  The majority of them have six additional classes besides my JROTC course.  When one of these Cadets is not performing to standard in his or her others classes or have a behavior issue these other teachers make an effort to make sure I know either face-to-face, by telephone or email.  Obviously these other teachers want me to manage their classrooms for them.  I don’t call the math teacher about one of my Cadets and say, “you math student is not behaving in my JROTC class…can you take care of it?”  It is not only this odd phenomenon.  My Cadets, on average out perform their fellow students in their other classes regularly. 

            With regards to the “vicious circle for leaders” in my organization, it is a more stove piped situation.  It has more followership, when it comes to teachers than leadership with a few exceptions such as department chairs.  It is more in line with Obolensky’s “Level Five Followership”. 

According to Obolensky:

• Level 1: Wait to be told. This is the lowest level and an unacceptable state of affairs. It assumes the individual will just sit and wait to be told what to do. This puts a large and unsustainable strain on leadership.

• Level 2: Ask to be told. At this level, the individual would come to the leader and ask to be told what to do next. Whilst a little bit more pro-active than level 1, it is still at a low state and assumes a low level of skill and will. The first two levels should be unacceptable – the lowest acceptable level should be level 3.

• Level 3: Seek approval for a recommendation. This is where the individual is unsure what to do, has an idea, but comes and seeks approval before acting. It may display a lack of confidence or just an honest appreciation that the situation is slightly more difficult than one which the individual is used to.

• Level 4: Seek approval for action undertaken. In this situation the individual has taken action but is unsure if it is right, so seeks confirmation from the leader. It may be a lack of confidence, or seeking to communicate action.

• Level 5: Get on and inform in a routine way. This is the best that should be aimed for. The key point here is ‘routine’ – there must be a routine for reporting to ensure accountability. Such a routine could include a weekly update meeting, a routine report, routine measurement etc.

(Obolensky, 2014)

            Many teachers in my organization hover around Level 1 and Level 4 and seldom make it to Level 5. 

            If I were to create a new circle for followership and leadership in my organization, policy would have to change policy and law.  Also, teachers would need to be enabled and a true chain of command would need to be created.

            At the end of the day, top down leadership is alive and well in my organization and teachers make good followers.

Reference

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. (2d ed). Gower Publishing: Burlington, VT

A633.5.3.RB_ReflectionsonChaos_LouBeldotti

A633.5.3.RB

Reflections on chaos

            Chaos.  What is it?  It’s confusion.  It is a one thousand piece puzzle and every piece has the same shape.  I live in chaos.  My wife doesn’t understand me and my dogs are crazy.  Things are never in the same place.  I open the refrigerator to a different landscape every time.  I continuously tell my wife that I need things put back exactly as I ask.  My claim is, “If I am ever struck blind, I’ll still be able to cook.” 

            I am so reminded of the 1993 movie “Jurassic Park”.  Especially a certain character…Dr. Ian Malcolm portrayed by Jeff Goldblum.  Dr. Malcolm was a chaos mathematician.  He explains the “butterfly effect” to his fellow scientists, “God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs.  Gee, the lack of humility before nature that's being displayed here, uh... staggers me.  If I may... Um, I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now…No, hold on. This isn't some species that was obliterated by deforestation, or the building of a dam. Dinosaurs had their shot, and nature selected them for extinction.  John, the kind of control you're attempting simply is... it's not possible. If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it expands to new territories and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, uh... well, there it is.  Dr. Sattler, Dr. Grant, you've heard of chaos theory?  No? Non-linear equations? Strange attractions? Dr. Sattler, I refuse to believe that you aren't familiar with the concept of attraction.  God creates dinosaur. God destroys dinosaur. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaur.  You see a Tyrannosaur doesn't follow a set pattern or park schedules, the essence of chaos.” (IMDb, 1993)

            I opted to watch the video instead of actually playing the chaos game because I couldn’t get my wife or three dogs to participate.  In the YouTube video, Obolensky (Obolensky, 2008) instructs a group of men to pick two other people at random but they cannot indicate who they have chosen and they cannot change who they have chosen.  Next, they were instructed to slowly move and position themselves at equal distance from the two people.  This took about a minute and a half.  Now, from what I know about chaos, I was expecting this to last a significant period of time.  The reason?  Each person has picked two people who have also picked two people who have picked two people who have picked two people…I imagined as one individual would gravitate towards the other two, the other two would individually gravitate towards their chosen people.  Obolensky explains this as “Discretion and freedom of action. Each person is free to act without having to wait for ‘permission’, or needing guidance on which way to go. This takes both an organizational culture and a personal attitude which encompasses Stuart’s Law of Retroaction (it is easier to seek forgiveness than obtain permission). Having discretion and freedom of action within well-defined boundaries is critical for complexity to work. And people need to feel confident in taking risks and using initiative and Ambiguity and uncertainty. Within the exercise there is a degree of chaos, and the situation is far from equilibrium. Whilst for some, if not all, there may be an uncomfortable feeling that things are looking chaotic, and that the exercise may be impossible, people still enter into the flow. This ‘far from equilibrium’ and uncertainty is the very essence of life itself, is therefore natural and something to be embraced rather than avoided, even if we prefer order and control. And the paradox is that we should not abandon order and control either!” (Obolensky, 2014)

            Chaos can have a great impact on strategy.  With chaos, there is nothing clearly defined.  There may be simple instructions or directions but if you give individuals too much autonomy and do not manage their actions, chaos will ensue.

References

IMDb. (1993). Jurassic Park quotes. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/quotes

Obolensky, N. (2008, April 12). Who needs leaders? [video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. (2d ed.). Gower Publishing: Burlington, VT

A633.4.3.RB_ChangingDynammicLeadership_LouBeldotti

A633.4.3.RB

Changing Dynamic Leadership

            I chose the picture above because it resonates with me.  I am reminded that truly dynamic leaders are always (or should be) at the tip of the spear.  It also reminds of a saying we would use in the Army…”Lead, follow, or get out of the way”.

            In this reflective blog I am asked to reflect on the opening exercise at the beginning of Chapter 4 of the of Obolensky text and other readings, and answer the following questions:  why do you think the shift in leadership is occurring and do you think this is indicative of what is happening in your organization.  List three reasons that support or refute this position.

            If so, how would leadership dynamics have to be altered to accommodate and promote these types of changes?  What are the implications on strategy?

A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT TO OPEN UP YOUR MIND TO WHAT MANY ARE FACING

Research looked at organizations which had achieved ‘step-change’.  These changes were sweeping and included strategy, culture and re-organization, and delivered great results. Such changes do not happen overnight and the typical period of time to achieve such change would be between two to five years. So we are talking about big organizational changes, and a myriad of solutions achieved the changes. The study looked at organizations that had gone through large changes. The original research was backed up by some action research of some 2,500 executives from over 50 different countries and hundreds of different organizations. They went through the exercise you are about to do. What was studied was where the actual solutions came from that made the changes happen. The original research looked at the solutions that made a difference on the ground (the actual action) and then backtracked these solutions over time to who had actually first thought of them – some solutions came from the top of the organization (the top being the top levels rather than the very top), some came from middle management and some came from the bottom. Of 100 per cent of the solutions that actually make specific changes happen on the ground to get positive results, what percentage of solutions do you think originally come from/are first thought of at the top? (Obolensky, 2014)

            I had to ponder this for a while.  I tried to approach this activity as a school teacher and could not, in all honesty, come up with anything.  One small exception is the fact that school teachers do 100% of the work or at least it seems like that.

            I had to settle on my past military experiences for this exercise.

            Obolensky explains the exercise with a pyramid graphic and the following:

            “The number you choose for the percentage of solutions from the top can also reflect both the background/context within which you operate and also the assumptions you have about leadership. In very general terms:

• The higher the number is, the more formal and traditional you may see leadership. In general terms the more junior and inexperienced the person is, the higher the number will be (except for the very old/retired who often have a traditional view).

The higher number owes more to the traditions of the past than the realities of the present and trend of the future.

• The lower the number is, the more informal and also perhaps more senior the person is. In general terms senior executives will give a low number as they live the bitter reality. They also realize their job is not about knowing and disseminating solutions, but creating the context where solutions can flow naturally. So the number you give will depend in some ways on the mix of age, culture and experience you have. However, some general trends exist:

• The more formal and structured organizations tended to give a higher number, but the assignation of higher numbers was not so much done by senior management but more often done by middle management. This always engendered a good debate about what roles and responsibilities were.

• There were some cultural trends – more formal European countries (such as Italy and Germany) tended to give a higher number than the more informal countries (such as Denmark and the UK). Asian countries, who tend to be more deferential towards authority and more hierarchical, as well as countries who have a legacy on strong top-down leadership (for example, Soviet military industrial companies), also scored on average slightly higher.

• There were some age differences – in general terms the more junior the level, the higher the number, and the more senior the executives the lower the number. In fact one main board all gave a figure of 0 per cent – the CEO explained, ‘We all understand that is not our job any longer.’ It is worth noting that the organization was in a transitional phase from matrix towards CAS.” (Obolensky, 2014)

            Obolensky’s description speak directly to military leadership.  Here is my take:  The junior Soldiers (Privates through Corporals) are at the base of the pyramid and have the opinion that middle managers and senior leaders make all of the decisions about what must be done.  These young Soldiers understand that those with more rank will be in-charge and they strive to climb the ladder so that they will become the ones who give orders.  Out of one hundred percent, this easily comes in at 60 or 70 percent. 

            At the center of the pyramid is the middle managers or junior leaders (Sergeants and Staff Sergeants) and the upper managers (Sergeants First Class, Master Sergeants, First Sergeants, Sergeants Major and Command Sergeants Major).  These are the ones who receive orders from the senior leaders and direct the junior Soldiers on how to fulfill the orders and accomplish the mission.  The more junior the leader is such as a Sergeant, the more accepting the junior Soldiers are to follow the direction.  These leaders come in at 30 percent.  Not to formal but they are understood to be in-charge.

            At the top of the pyramid is the senior leaders.  There is a caveat to this however.  The most junior of these senior leaders are the Second Lieutenants and First Lieutenants.  There orders and directions are generally frowned upon but followed.  These young leaders have very little experience and are often required to use an experienced Noncommissioned Officer as a sounding board and mentor.  More often than not, Soldiers look at the Captains, Majors, Lieutenant Colonels, Colonels and General Officers as senior leaders.  At the General Officer level, their orders are tantamount to law and followed to the “T”.  The orders that come from the top are very formal.  They are often written in formal memorandums.  These are at ten percent.  Even though they do not perform any of the work, the junior Soldiers and leaders would probably assign 60 percent or more giving the appearance of top down leadership.

            This is military leadership and it has developed over centuries and is not subject to change.  I came up through the ranks and started at the bottom of the pyramid and climbed to the highest tier of the middle.  I have seen how it works.  Sometimes I wasn’t happy being squished in the middle but it helped me develop into the leader that I am today.

            This leadership method and strategies have been tried and are effective.  Once I left the Army, I took these methods with me.  In the six years that I have been retired, I have used these practices and methods in the private sector and in secondary education for the past five years.  It required some adaptation and tweaking but it works well for me with my students and school administrators. 

Reference

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. (2d Ed). http://reader.chegg.com/book.php?id=ac6967ef3270567b9a1a8af2dc0258ee

A633.3.4.RB_CompexityStrategy_LouBeldotti

A633.3.4.RB

Complexity Science

            The graphic above reminds me of an Etch-A-Sketch gone wrong or a weird string art project by a third grader.  However, it is a depiction of the “butterfly effect”.  Simply put, it reflects how something small can become something big.

            In this reflective blog, I am asked to “reflect on your own organizations strategy and how it has evolved over time. Discussing each stage of development and how feedback and strategy formulation have evolved. Consider the next stages in your company's evolution and describe what it will look like in 10 years and where will you be?.”  Honestly, I cannot do this with my current occupation as a public school teacher.  So, I will use my former “employer”…the US Army.

            I first enlisted into the United States Army in 1982.  Most of the Senior Noncommissioned Officers were Vietnam veterans and there were a few General Officers that were World War II veterans.  These were different times.  The “Air, Land, Sea battle doctrine” was still alive and well.  Essentially this doctrine was to secure and maintain superiority in the air, on the land and on the sea during combat operations.  Like pages on a calendar, pages would be peeled off as each month passed as would change come to how we fought and defeated our enemies.  Our enemies were adapting to our fighting doctrine and gaining a foothold.  Then came asymmetrical combat.  This turned the air, land, sea battle doctrine on its head.  The butterfly effect no longer happened when we fought our enemies.  Now, a small thing could easily become an even smaller thing instead of having a larger effect.

            The military had to evolve its strategy.  According to Obolensky, “There are a variety of ways of looking at strategy. The way it is formulated can be seen as top down, bottom up or a mix of both. The strategy can also be seen in terms of how fixed/fluid it is, how clearly it is understood across the organization, and how much it is owned through the organization:

            • The extent to which the strategy is clear across the organization is often a headache for many top executives. Clarity means that everyone in the organization understands the overall big picture strategy and how they fit within it. This is a perennial problem for top teams. There are, however, stages at which it is natural that the strategy is unclear, normally in a period of transition into matrix or CAS. In many ways the degree of clarity depends not on what the strategy is but how it came about. Similar to the point about ownership below, if there has been no involvement in the formulation of the strategy, do not expect a high degree of understanding – people need to be engaged rather than preached to. The lack of clarity of strategy is also used as an excuse by followers to do nothing to take the initiative. This is looked at in more detail in Chapter 7.

            • Strategies can also been seen in terms of how fixed or fluid they are. In reality this is a continuum, but one can contrast the strategic approach of formulating strategy on, say, a five yearly cycle and having a more fluid approach where strategy is updated on a continual basis. The extent of fluidity and fixed nature will be affected by the market the organization is in, as well as the organizational evolutionary maturity.

            • The level of ownership of the strategy will be dictated by the amount of involvement in formulating and deciding the strategy. The simple rule of ‘No involvement = no ownership’ often applies. Many senior executives worry about ‘buy-in’ when in fact they should be concentrating on ‘sell-out’ – in other words the process used by executives to sell internally is crucial. A key hurdle is the inability to ‘let go’ which, when you come to think about it, is vital when ‘selling’ and developing shared ownership. This is explored more in Chapters 9 and 10.” (Obolensky, 2014)

            This strategy change for the military is a mixture of top down and bottom up.  The war fighters on the ground (bottom) explained to the senior members what was happening and the senior member (top) evoked change that affected the war fighters.  This, in-turn, puts the butterfly effect correctly back into action.

            In ten years, we will have only refined the way we fight unless the enemy makes another game change and we will have to evolve yet again.

Reference

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. (2^nd ed). Gower Publishing Company: Burlington, VT

A633.3.3.RB_ComplexAdaptiveSystems_LouBeldotti

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.

            Wow!  I performed a Google search and found plenty of blogs from past classes at ERAU about Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS).

            After spending 27 years in the US Army, limited experience in the public sector, and almost six years in public education, I have very limited exposure to CAS.  In the military, CAS is an acronym for Close Air Support.  Not the same thing.

            However, there has been studies of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) with regards to the military.  One particular study by Keith L. Green in 2011 evokes Tolstoy:

“From the battlefield adjutants he had sent out, and orderlies from his marshals, kept galloping up to Napoleon with reports of the progress of the action, but all these reports were false, both because it was impossible in the heat of battle to say what was happening at any given moment and because many of the adjutants did not go to the actual place of conflict but reported what they had heard from others; and also because while an adjutant was riding more than a mile to Napoleon circumstances changed and the news he brought was already becoming false. Thus an adjutant galloped up from Murat with tidings that Borodino had been occupied and the bridge over the Kolocha was in the hands of the French. The adjutant asked whether Napoleon wished the troops to cross it?  Napoleon gave orders that the troops should form up on the farther side and wait. But before that order was given—almost as soon in fact as the adjutant had left Borodino—the bridge had been retaken by the Russians and burned...” (Tolstoy, 1869)

            War and Peace is of course a narrative fictional account, but having served in the Russian Army, Tolstoy was conveying in this passage not just hypothetical knowledge gained through his study of history, but to some extent his personal experience in the Crimean. One wonders what Tolstoy might have written had he witnessed the use of technology by the First-World militaries of today. There exists that data allows commanders to know within tolerable error where their units are in near or near-real time; radios permit them to make inquiries of field units and communicate orders in seconds; Unmanned Aerial Systems provide real-time reconnaissance of an area many miles from their headquarters. And yet soldiers still die, and battles may still be won while campaigns are lost. Confusion reigns. Sometimes military analysts cannot answer except with anecdotal evidence or gut feeling what seems a simple question: Are we winning or losing? Moreover, military analysts often cannot answer credibly and convincingly whether a particular action has helped or harmed the cause. War differs from the subjects that traditional technical analysis is well-suited to address; however, in attempting to address the complex problems of war, analysts often attempt to apply traditional techniques by making simplifying assumptions invalid in the real world. In effect, the analysts ignore the complexities of war altogether. War displays archetypical features of complex adaptive systems—systems comprising agents that make decisions based on local, sometimes erroneous or dated information in which interactions produce patterns that could not have been calculated or derived beforehand.

            The mission space for the US military has been dominated in recent years by tasks that were not the focus of the military during much of the twentieth century, when major combat operations against other major powers was the primary concern. These new tasks cut across what has been described as the range of military operations and the problems associated with these tasks cannot be adequately addressed by traditional, fixed responses. Such problems require generalized adaptive strategies and capabilities. Today’s military prevents genocide, delivers humanitarian assistance, counters insurgents, trains foreign militaries, assists reconstruction, and supports civil authorities in a range of missions, from disaster relief to combating drug trafficking. Mission outcomes can be strongly influenced by factors that have nothing directly to do with logistics or kinetic operations. Local economic, political, and social factors exacerbate inherent complexity—as can the economic, political and social factors in the United States and around the world. A US Marine Corps manual states explicitly, War is a complex phenomenon. (Green, 2011)

            War is the same as Tolstoy depicts in his novel, even 147 years later.  The only thing that has changed is technology.  War hasn’t changed but those fighting it have adapted.  Adaptation to technology.  The strategy is the same…the only thing that has changed is how wars are fought.

            As a 27-year veteran of the US Military, it has been adaptation to change and technology that has kept the military relevant.   This is what is necessary to move the military forward. 

References

Tolstoy, L. (1869). War and Peace Project Gutenberg, Book 10, Chapter XXXIII, accessed on 24 Aug 2010 on http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2600?msg=welcome_stranger

Green, L. (2011, May). Complex Adaptive Systems in Military Analysis. Retrieved on August 27, 2016 from https://www.ida.org/~/media/Corporate/Files/Publications/IDA_Documents/JAWD/ida-document-d-4313.pdf

A633.2.3.RB_ButterflyEffect_LouBeldotti

A633.2.3.RB

Butterfly Effect

This week’s reflective blog:

            Based on this week's reading, reflect on complexity science and theory in organizations and the butterfly effect (p.66). 

            Identify 2 examples where “small changes yield large results” in your organization.

            What are the implication of complexity theory for you and your organization and how can you use this to drive improvements.

            This week’s reflective blog (RB) immediately made me think of Jurassic Park.  In the original movie, Jeff Goldblum, portrayed a character named Dr. Ian Malcolm.  Dr. Malcolm was a chaos mathematician”.  He was not exactly the voice of reason but he definitely let the other characters in the movie know of his opinion when it came to the cause and effect of cloning ancient creatures for modern man’s amusement.

            According to my research, the “butterfly effect” is an example of an attractor.  According to Obolensky, “These plots have a specific and easily understandable pattern. However, some attractors do not and they are called ‘strange’ attractors. Perhaps the most famous and useful strange attractor is known as the butterfly effect, or Lorenz’s Strange Attractor. Of all the chaos theories this one has special importance for Complex Adaptive Leadership. Much work was done in the 1970s when the new theories of chaos were really beginning to emerge. Strangely enough, most papers in various different fields began to appear independently of each other in 1970. Sadly very few were aware that a lot of work had already been done ten years earlier. It seemed no one thought of looking in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, volume 20, pp. 130–41, published in 1963. Over a decade before the term ‘chaos mathematics’ was first coined an article entitled ‘Deterministic Non-Periodic Flow’ by Edward Lorenz described one of the most famous manifestations of chaos mathematics – the butterfly effect. Its more technical term is ‘Lorenz’s Strange Attractor’.  Edward Lorenz was a keen mathematician but actually worked as a research meteorologist. He built a mini-weather system simulator on a Royal McBee computer in 1960. In the winter of 1961 he wanted to study again a weather simulation he had just spent several days running, and so typed in the starting parameters once more. These consisted of a very lengthy list of numbers each with a long decimal point such as 0.501675. The numbers represented changes in three variables of temperature, pressure and wind speed. To save time, he left the final few numbers off as this in meteorological terms was insignificant – ‘Like a seagull fart in a hurricane’ was the apparent significance he was reported to comment to a colleague. The simulation ran at first exactly as before, but after a couple of days some very small differences occurred to the first run. After a while these differences grew to an outcome that was vastly different – the simulation ended in a weather state poles apart from the first run, despite such a very small change at the start. Lorenz made an accidental but very significant discovery – that a very small change within a complex system (such as weather) can produce a very large difference to what would have otherwise happened. In other words, when a situation has a great sensitivity to initial conditions a small change can have a disproportionate effect. When he worked out why this was, he found that even complex and chaotic systems, which are unpredictable in the long run, have an underlying pattern. This accidental discovery was given the technical name ‘Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions’. When Lorenz presented his paper several years later to the 139th meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington in 1972, he titled his paper ‘Predictability – Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?’ His answer was, predictably, ambiguous whilst focusing on the instability of the atmosphere. Lorenz’s butterfly effect can be explained by three (temperature, pressure and wind speed) simultaneous non-linear differential equations which have an infinite number of possible solutions. When graphed, these equations give a picture as shown in Figure 5.10, which shows why the term ‘butterfly’ is used. Since that time the butterfly effect is one of the most well-known phenomena of chaos mathematics. It has given rise to many manifestations in films, literature and TV.  It also has historic manifestations, a recent one being Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisian fruit seller in the rural town of Sidi Bouzid, who upon having his wares confiscated and being unable to gain an audience with the mayor, immolated himself in front of town hall on 17 December 2010. His desperate action set off a series of events which became known as the Arab Spring. An unforeseen, unprecedented and dramatic political, social, cultural and economical realignment across the Middle-East, has gone on to dramatically change the daily lives of over 200 million people. Although the story of Mohamed Bouazizi is tragic in the extreme, his actions were, in fact, the wing flap of Lorenz’s butterfly. The butterfly effect is very significant as, on the face of it, it seems to break the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes known as the Law of the Conservation of Energy, which can be summarized as: the effort you put in will dictate the result you get out. Yet within complex organizations, small changes can yield large results. A practical example of this is the concept of ‘catalytic mechanisms’ that Collins reports in his research. These are small changes to company policy which yielded large results.” (Obolensky, 2014)

            The “butterfly effect” reminds me of throwing a stone into a body of water.  When the stone pierces the water’s surface a ripple occurs and grows into even larger concentric ripples.  A stone the size of a quarter can turn into a ripple the size of house. 

            As a high school educator, often times small things turn into even larger things when it comes to students.  It can be triggered by a kind word or some type of discipline.  An example of this is offering words of encouragement to a substandard student who ends of being the Valedictorian.  The student could have easily failed out of school but, instead, excelled.  Another example is taking a cell phone from a student.  Parents become involved and they make phone calls and send emails that causes this small act of discipline to escalate into a giant problem.

            Dealing with students and parents is very complex.  There are rules and policies in place but often times, the more irate the parent and student becomes, the more apt the administration is to err on the side of the student and/or parent.

            The only true way to drive improvement is to uphold the policies and standards.  In my position as an Army Instructor, I continuously hold to the standards and this, in itself, causes plenty of ripples.

Reference

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2 ed.). Retrieved from http://reader.chegg.com/book.php?id=ac6967ef3270567b9a1a8af2dc0258ee