A633.5.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Reflections on Chaos

     Obolensky's (2008), Who Needs Leaders? was a phenomenal exercise in showing how complexity can be seen as a chaotic dance of indeterminate inter-activities of agents at one level. The individuals took Obolensky's direction to select two other individuals as reference points without ever letting on who they are while moving about within the confines of the space provided, keeping equidistant from each others' selected reference points until all agents have settled into a balance of meeting their objective in relation to everyone else. Then, my thoughts went down a rabbit hole when Obolensky asked what would happen if he had selected one person to be in charge! Everyone began laughing, at what I could only imagine be for the same reason I was laughing. It would have been a messy and near impossible task for any one person to control all agents as they moved, attempting to control each three-agent group as they constantly shift and move, being affected by other three-agent groups.

     Considering how the dynamic, complex and unpredictable behavior of Obolensky's  (2008), groups may appear at varying levels, I can see how each three agent group creates an ever-changing series of geometrical shapes that intertwine with all other three agent groups moving about within and without these other elements placing forces on one another which in turn will determine the course of all the other three agent groups. At one level, the groups may simply represent people milling about where their location affects everybody elses schedules in time and space. At another level, these individuals could represent decisions made within an organization and understanding that each decision has an affect upon many other agents and decision being made by them that would render unpredictable results. In the ways of chaos, in a complex system, each part has the potential to randomly shift between order and disorder, rendering a forecast unpredictable (Mulder, 2016).

     Trying to picture how these three agent groups would fare when attempting to accomplish their objective; to find themselves individually equidistant from one another, while being controlled and micromanaged by a single leader seemed as if it would make a beautiful and fluid complex environment into a truly chaotic dynamic with little to no fractal representation. Mason stated, "By allowing people and groups within an organization some autonomy, businesses encourage the organization to organize itself, enacting multiple iterations of its own functioning until the various pieces of the organization can work together most effectively" (n.d.). A single leader cannot be everywhere at the same time, and in fact, would benefit by having 'other' leaders steer the course of their own piece of the organization, by focusing on accomplishing objectives in relation to all other potential stakeholders, obstacles, and opportunities in support of the overall organization's vision.

     This brings me to another consideration; the perception of the existence of chaos in a dynamic complex environment. If these environments are proven to show mathematical order of sorts, then how chaotic can it be? If chaos lacks order by definition, and order is discovered to be an underlying phenomenon within these environments over time, then perhaps chaos actually does not exist in these environments, and is only used to vaguely describe an unpredictable environment. In contrast, the Fractal Foundation (n.d.), claims that chaos is not simply disorder, but rather investigates the changes between order and disorder, and can occur in very surprising ways.

     If leadership can understand the value of the underlying order found in many of these nonlinear, dynamic, complex environments, it would only seem to make sense that they would adjust their approach on strategy using the concept that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. If an organization is looked at only from a single reference point (oligarchical leadership), how can all the sub-systems of an organization ever truly grow over time? Levy (1994), explains, "The notion that long-term planning for chaotic systems is not only difficult but essentially impossible has profound implications for organizations trying to set strategy based on their anticipation of the future" (p. 170). However, on the other hand, he states, "Short-term forecasting is possible because in a deterministic system, given the condition at time 't,' we can calculate the conditions at time 't+1' " (Levy, 1994, p. 171). While some implications on strategy may be tough to derive, others can play vital roles during times of uncertainty and in need of resiliency. In the end, I feel the greatest takeaway is to understand that small events initially within the dynamics of a nonlinear complex environment can render very big results over time that cannot easily be forecasted, and that strategies based on this understanding can help mitigate large losses.


References:


Obolensky, N. (2008, April 12). Who needs leaders? Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E&feature=youtu.be


Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Surrey, EN: Ashgate Publishing Inc.


Fractal Foundation (n.d.). What is chaos theory? Retrieved from http://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/


Levy, D. (1994). Chaos theory and strategy: Theory application and managerial implications. Strategic Management Journal, 15. 167-178. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c5db/10f69cf4a47101620905d1dcca43bb7d329a.pdf


Mason, W. H. (n.d.). Chaos theory. Retrieved from http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Bun-Comp/Chaos-Theory.html


Mulder, P. (2016, June 21). Chaos theory. Retrieved from https://www.toolshero.com/strategy/chaos-theory/

     

A633.4.3.RG_SiegmundWayne

Changing Dynamics of Leadership

    
     There is a shift in leadership that is occurring for very specific reasons. Obolensky (2014), explains that changes in organizations have been backtracked to determine what decisions led to these changes, and who made them. The results showed that the sources of the solutions were spread throughout the organization with less than 10% of all the solutions on average coming from the top, approximately 30% from middle management, and approximately 60% from the bottom. This clearly shows that those most involved in the work on the ground contribute the most to effective solutions.
     In my organization, the United States military, at the highest levels, the hierarch type is an oligarchy for purposes of command and control to be implemented and adhered to. However, at the lowest level, it will depend what type of unit one is attached to, its environment, and the nature of the interpersonal relationships in that particular environment that will determine how, if at all, leadership change occurs as it relates to a shift towards a polyarchy. Believing the military failing to exist is not an option, as an organization and business, the military must find a way to adapt to the ever-changing technological,  geopolitical and socioeconomic environments. Hermann (2009) shared, "Multidimensional thinking and acting in military decision-making and applying new learning models to build up a climate of change and innovation on all levels of the armed forces is necessary."
     Within my current specific organizational unit, I believe there exists elements of a polyarchy where each member of the team contributes to the overall discussions, all the while receiving genuine and authentic questions from leadership on a regular basis. "...small sub-entities form small sub-groups within the system, and develop certain behaviors and interconnections activating a local mindset" (Ergen, 2012, p. 4). However, due to the nature of the military, I currently do not see this organization ever getting any closer to a polyarchy than what it is now. A few reasons to support my position: 1) I believe aspects of the military at these smaller units will provide valuable insight and problem-solving opportunities to support the larger military objectives without interrupting, or breaking the national military construct of command and control;  2) there is an inherent requirement to adhere to the understanding and practice of leadership taking responsibility for the perception of command and control and the respective behavior reflecting that of a subordinate towards a superior; and 3) I feel that allowing such a polyarchy into the culture of such an institution would invite scrutiny at all levels, questioning if leaders did in fact have control over their subordinates, which, if ever came to fruition, could ruin that leader's potential for further promotion.
     If I was to get creative, think outside the box, and assume that the United States military would approve such a shift to take place and put it on me to figure out how to initiate the process, I suppose I would start somewhere along the same line that we are doing so now, at the lowest unit levels. Incorporating a polyarchy at the small unit allows for progress reports to be evaluated and assessed for purposes of adjustments, discussions, funding of supporting technologies, etc., all without interrupting the 'big green machine' at large. Over time, as the benefits were becoming apparent, and outweighing cost, minimizing loss of personnel, or respect for leadership, and each directorate to each command makes the shift to a ployarchy, the final step would be to have the Commanding Officer authentically participate. Darley (2016), states, "As you start working on a few small authentic changes in your leadership approach, the ripple effect will touch all areas of your group, sparking more shifts and changes." If this transition was deemed successful, a blueprint with a detailed explanation of how to shift to a ployarchy, and get it employed at each command under the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it would require an Executive Order.
     As this relates to organizational strategy, I do not believe this shift would alter, or require a change in any of the military's strategies. I believe if any of their strategies would be effected and identified early on, such a shift would not be allowed to occur. If this organization was any other corporate type, I would imagine that the leadership would re-evaluate their organizational objectives, mission statement, as wells their vision statement in preparation to becoming more productive due to their unification, team work, increased technological capabilities, social interdepartmental interactions, peer to peer reviews and communication, feedback, top to bottom and bottom to top interaction, as well as new external socio-economic dynamics.


References:


Darley, L. (2016, June 7). Making an authentic shift in your leadership approach. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2016/06/07/making-an-authentic-shift-in-your-leadership-approach/#2d5ed31b57d6


Ergen, E. (2012, February 3). The monograph of Greece: Exploring complex adaptive leadership in a European country. Retrieved from http://ergen.gr/files/ExploringCALinGreece.pdf


Hermann, J. (2009). New ways of military thinking and acting for a better world: New models-preparing forces to master unavoidable transitions. Advances in Military Sociology: Essays in Honor of Charles C. Moskos, 12(1), p. 353-393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1572-8323(2009)000012A025


Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Furnham, Surrey: EN. Gower Publishing Limited.

A633.3.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

Complexity Science

 

      Strategy based within my organization is derived from a couple of command echelons above my own. In this case, my command’s strategy is nested within Special Operations Command Africa’s (SOCAFRICA) Supporting Plan to United States Africa Command’s (USAFRICOM) Theatre Campaign Plan, which is considered to be one of five major combatant commands across the globe. This command and control construct is inherent within the United States military’s oligarchy structure, and ensures top down orders are followed in support of national and international interests that may not be seen, or fully comprehended at the company, or platoon level, yet nevertheless, needs to be followed in a timely manner.

     As far back as Roman times up until the Vietnam War, Guerilla warfare has been the traditional means of defeating our nation’s enemy. However, as early as World War II, special operations was created out of the necessity to accomplish a particular mission, which in turn was part of a larger strategy that entailed future concerns such as political stray voltage, the American people’s perceptions, international perceptions, financial blowback, and future strategic planning and lessons learned.

     Porter (1996), offered, “Competitive strategy is about being different. It means deliberately choosing a different set of activities to deliver a unique mix of value.” When Afghanistan and Iraq began, SOCAFRICA employed skillsets that enabled the soldiers on the ground to acquire time-sensitive information in support of current U.S. military objectives. This strategy significantly changed the way SOCAFRICA does business in the Middle East, as well as in the current area of operations, Africa.

     Nowadays, this skillset is by far leveraged as the primary strategy, coupled with other methods, of getting ahead of our nation’s and partner nation’s enemies in fighting the war against terrorism and Violent Extremist Organizations (VEO). What makes the use of this skillset so valuable is the flexibility and adaptability to a wide range of environments, cultures where military presence may, or may not be accepted. Being certified in this skillset, as well as a manager of those with the same, or similar skillset, allows me the unique perspective of understand the value, and wide potential usage of it for multiple purposes in multiple locations, laterally, or bi-laterally (with other forces).

     By with and through lessons learned and after action reports, SOCAFRICA has been able to take past experiences, evaluate what has brought value added events to SOCAFRICA, and what has not. Through this analysis and evaluation, it has been determined that certifying and updating this skillset’s Course of Instruction (COI) has been a special operations necessity in order to provide expertise in this area with a flexible and adaptable Course of Action (COA) should the environment change again, as it will. It turns out that this skillset has been a long-time emerging strategy that was not realized for its true value until just recently. Hamel (1998) shared, “the most fundamental insight of complexity theory is that ‘complex behavior need not have complex roots,’” (as cited by Langton).    

     Currently, SOCAFRICA is in the approval process of a five year strategic plan that primarily focuses on the employment of this skillset as it relates to the U.S. AFRICOM Area of Responsibility (AOR). With that said, adjustments to this skillset includes modifications of platforms from which it is employed, partner nations in which to leverage, emerging Concept of Operations (CONOPs), and authorizations allowing such activities to occur legally. As in-house sustainment training gets implemented here at SOCAFRICA, understanding the purpose and employment of this skillset by all the command’s directorates will ensure a greater unified synchronization of effort from SOCAFRICA as a whole improving over effectiveness in the future as the environment changes. While assisting in this shift of strategic development and employment, I will be departing for a new command, bringing with me the experience of staff related perceptions to a most likely a lower echelon command, enhancing their understanding, and hopefully, their capability.

 

References:

 

 Hamel, G. (1998). Strategy innovation and the quest for value. Sloan Management Review, 39(2). P. 7-14. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=7917c1f6-334a-44fd-95a4-653b41a3b89e%40sessionmgr102&vid=0&hid=118&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=159467&db=bth

 

Porter, M. E. (1996, December). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6). P.61-78. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=8ff13b03-9c3a-4649-a245-9cec9e94da90%40sessionmgr4009&vid=0&hid=4201&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=9611187954&db=bth

 

Sullivan, T. (2011, September). Communication: Embracing Complexity. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/09/embracing-complexity

A633.3.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Complex Adaptive Systems

     Much like Morningstar and St. Luke's profile of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS), Valve Corporation takes it a bit further in the sense that "it consists of no explicit hierarchy.  It’s based on what several members of the company have described ... as the principles of anarcho-syndicalism. Effectively, free association of employees with one another" (Wagreich, 2013). In fact, it is a company of no bosses where decisions such as hiring, firing and bonuses are decided upon by peer consensus. This anarcho-syndicalism refers to Valve's self-organized groups that work together to accomplish goals and meet objectives. Perhaps the most unique aspect to the company on top of its internal mobility concept, it provides their employees 100% free time to roam around from project to project offering their expertise to where it may help most (Wagreich, 2013).

     Implications for my organization, the United States Military, would be to see the polyarchy grow within the oligarchy. That is to say, see the elements of the CAS from within Valve get applied at the 06 command level where the politics of decision making are not so influenced by Washington D.C. directly. Providing this kind of environment to these levels within the United States Military, offers each command opportunities for growth, maintain integrity, inspire initiative behavior, and improve the teamwork concept, to name a few. For myself, these concepts I will introduce incrementally within my own personal spheres of influence within my organization, so as to sensitize others I work with to the concept of CAS, their elements and benefits (Obolensky, 2014).

     Identifying my organization as a type II Matrix, it appears that the transition from type II to a type III CAS organization may require process consultants and cross-functional teams to aid in the transition as precursors in the evolution from a type II to type III. Obolensky (2014) states, "...key boundaries and few simple rules are put in place by top management, and the organization's overarching purpose is clarified, understood and shared by all" (p. 26). For the military, a series of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), policies and directives would need to be drafted and approved through the chain of command showing implementation of explicit key tasks that would enable the evolution to a Complex Adaptive System (Obolensky, 2014).

     Strategy within my organization has evolved greatly since the days of Afghanistan and Iraq. Our fight against terrorism in Africa is not so much any particular regional threat rooted within a particular country. Rather, a trans-regional threat that is mobile, global, and destroying governments from within. The United States' strategy in Africa is not to defeat a country, but to partner with them, realign with them, train, equip and support them in their fight against these mobile, global trans-regional threats. This strategy's implications overall is such that we are not at war with these African countries, but creating and building partner nation capacity and alliances with those that are at a time that is greatly needed.

References:

Collins, R. (2016, December 3). Organizations are not machines. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/great-work-cultures/organizations-are-not-mac_b_8710462.html

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

Reeves, M. (2014, December 22). Martin reeves: Your strategy needs a strategy [YouTube file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE_ETgaFVo8

Wagreich, S. (2013, March 3). A billion dollar company with no bosses? Yes it exists. Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/samuel-wagreich/the-4-billion-company-with-no-bosses.html



A633.2.3.RB_SIegmundWayne

Butterfly Effect

     Simple things can, and have yielded big results. For example, a simple note passing in class can turn into two strangers fighting in the parking lot after school; making a culturally sensitive gesture to another colleague can turn into a long, drawn-out lawsuit; and accidentally shooting an innocent bystander in a foreign country can thrust an already politically sensitive environment into conflict.

     Complexity Science is a study of how general and basic pre-existing rules and laws can be discovered to explain and even control that of which creates a complex environment (Phelan, 2001), and ..."shows an inherent and underlying simplicity of a self-organizing nature" (Obolensky, 2014, p. 54). Science uses formulas and equations to help explain mathematics and physics, are quantifiable and provable. Why not utilize this behavior to explain a complex organizational environment. From a distance, becoming aware of all activity and their interactivity with other associated elements throughout an organization can be determined to be overwhelmingly complex, and even complicated. However, is it feasible to consider where decision points are located, can, up close, be adjusted so as to alter the second and third order effects, if the results from a macro perspective are undesirable? Ultimately, Obolensky proposes that even though older, more traditionally accepted theories of leadership may be suitable for certain environments, must give way to more polyarchal types in order to explain, clarify, understand and control more complex organizational environments and their contextual domains  whose results of uncertainty, paradoxes and non-deterministic results find themselves on the other end of the equal sign (Obolensky, 2014).

     In my organization, currently a joint military special forces environment, numerous occurrences display a butterfly effect, a phenomenon by Lorenz known as 'sensitive dependence on initial conditions', (Bradley, 2010). Under a similar dynamic, people in my environment often uses policies, guideline, standard operating procedures, operational directives, executive orders, concepts of operations, memorandums of agreement, and so on, throughout the day. Unfortunately, there has never been a repository for all these references, leaving people at their own behest to search and locate, if possible, the relative reference needed, wasting tens to hundreds of man hours. Approximately four months ago, our knowledge manager, simply collected in a very organized and accessible format, all the references for operations in a single location without ever telling anyone. When one person discovered this, they told another person who had asked about how to go about locating a particular reference. This passing of information over time change the way business was conducted at our command due to all the time saved.

     In another example, when I arrived at my command, people tend to dress the same way everyday, in casual civilian clothing. New to me, I arrived in business casual clothing. Knowing that I could never go wrong looking professional, I remained dressing as such even though everyone else dressed in their 'street clothes'. Over a period of eight months, members of my directorate slowly added collared shirts, sweaters, khaki pants and dress shoes. Today 85% of my directorate dresses in business casual on a regular basis. It appears that the introduction of a flutter of casual wear sparked a small change over time creating a whole new, unforeseen change in our dress code. Since then, we have increased our inter-agency partner relationship 200-fold since May of 2016, which in turn is reporting positive brief-backs to our Commanding General once a week on operational developments.

     Where I am concerned with respect to my organization, complexity theory can be utilized where multiple leadership styles and strategies intermingle generating uncertain results on multiple levels. Understanding who all the stakeholders are, their interests and strategies in a complex domain, provides location inside the complex perspective where self-organizing and evolving mechanisms can be modified over time in order to provide rudder steerage towards an organization's vision. Anderson (1999), offers, "Strategic direction of complex organizations consists of establishing and modifying environments within which effective, improvised, self-organized solutions can evolve". Where my organization exists at the higher echelon levels of the military, these self-corrected measures can be established at identified system nodes at each directorate level (gateway) that has a given effect as decisions move forward up and down the chain of command, as well as laterally and across interagency domains clarifying what once was a complex environment without known nodes of influence.

References:

Anderson, P. (1999, June 1). Perspective: Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.3.216

Bradley, L. (2010). Chaos and fractals: The butterfly effect. Retrieved from http://www.stsci.edu/~lbradley/seminar/butterfly.html

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

Phelan, S. E. (2001). What is complexity science, really? Emergence, 3(1), 120-136. Retrieved from https://faculty.unlv.edu/phelan/Phelan_What%20is%20complexity%20science.pdf