To begin, individuals position themselves in an area within a boundary at arms length. Once positioned, they choose two random participants as reference points. At this point rules are introduced. Participants must stay within the boundary. They are required to gravitate towards each other to reach their reference points. They may only stand still once they reach their objective. The objective is to adjust their position slowly and gradually to be at an equal distance from their reference points. This allows them to critically think through the exercise, become self-organized, and self-managed in an effort to complete a highly complex task.
Obolensky (2014) wrote “The outcome of the exercise at the beginning of this chapter often surprises people. It seems impossible, yet it works out very quickly. The counter-intuitive conclusion is: the more complex things are, the less traditional leadership one needs. Instead, a leader needs to put in place certain key principles so that the organization being led can be self-leading” (p.101). At ERAU we are faced with complex situations however the organization could do a better job at allowing employees to be “self-leading”. In my position, there is a level of self-management however the organization could benefit by following Obolensky’s eight principles to completing highly complex tasks. In order for this to occur a change in culture would be necessary and a polyarchy approach would need to be implemented organization wide.
Obolensky (2014) wrote “So up until the turn of the twentieth century, the main thinking about the interplay between chaos and order, complexity and simplicity, was largely philosophical. As far as science was concerned, the universe was ordered” (p.57). These assumptions were successfully challenged. Chaos shows us that there is an underlying order and pattern which can be recognized and used to good effect (Obolensky, 2014). Currently in my organization we are seeing a pattern of decreased enrollments. Our data shows a negative trend stemming from an all time high back in 2012-2013. We have been tasked with determining what it is we are doing, how we can do it better, and to improve the effect this has on our organization.
Our objective is clear. Increase enrollments to meet our organizational year long enrollment goal. The rules we have are not so clear. It seems that they change daily. This disrupts our processes however this “chaos” is meant to “help” improve our processes when in actuality it only causes confusion, more work, and room for error. Our boundary is somewhat inconsistent as well. We are often told that our personal time is ours and then we are told we take too much personal leave time (which we earn and take only when approved). We are also told that we should be taking our lunch hour however most of us work through lunch (and our breaks) in effort to do the capitalize on our time in the office. It is safe to say that we could work 12-15 hour days and we could still not accomplish all of our objectives in that time. We have been advised that we are not required to stay late or work on the weekends but honestly that would be the only way to achieve most of our tasks. Our boundary is undefined. Our Director has recently started to provide us with additional feedback which is helping us track our progress in achieving our goals. The skill/will of our team is not in question. I feel we are a hi-performing team however recently we have been made to feel otherwise which has negatively impacted our team morale. As a team, we do have freedom of action. We all work independently to reach a common goal. I think the underlying purpose of our goal is misunderstood. Are our efforts motivated in the best interest of our students or the organization? Is there a balance to be had between the two? We once felt this was clear but recent events have clouded this principle. Uncertainty and ambiguity have certainly become an obstacle for us. One which we should be embracing in an effort to conquer. Obolensky (2014) wrote “there are a variety of reasons and ways for people to become comfortable with ambiguity. The research done within chaos theory and complexity science gives a good solid foundation upon which to build such comfort” (p.129).
My team and organizational strategy has been impacted by the issues and concerns referenced above. One way to rectify the situation we are currently facing would be to take a new, fresh approach to how we try to achieve our goals. Several external factors come into play which could use further investigation. That would be my first recommendation. Secondly, there are areas our organization needs to make clear to our team in order to be on the same page. Demanding results is a sure fire way to not attain them. Thirdly, the relationships that play a part in our efforts needs to be examined in order to work more cohesively together to reach the “big picture” goal the organization has set for itself.
Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership (2nd. Ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company
No comments:
Post a Comment