A633.5.3.RB-Reflections on Chaos- Trey McNeil

One thing I have learned in this life is that chaos can be found anywhere, but it is how the chaos is handled that makes the difference. According to Obolensky (2014), success lies in balancing order and chaos. As I write this blog, I am in a hospital waiting room of the surgical ward and am witnessing the epitome of balance.  The chaos is on the faces and in the actions of the others waiting for patients. Some individuals could be waiting on individuals having more serious surgeries, so the worry is leading to the chaotic nature.  Some individuals are up and down, looking at the monitor that relays surgical progress or pacing frantically around the room. But, the balance lies in the nurses and volunteers. They are the definition of order. They remain tranquil and have a strategy to make sure everyone is as calm as possible. Though this example does not relate to an organization, it is proof that a balance could be a success in a company.

Obolensky (2012) introduced a game, or as he called it working experiment, that demonstrated how simple complexity could be if a few simple parameters were followed. When I first began to read about this task, I grew weary about the predicted outcome. I thought the complexity and chaos would get in the way of the intended goal of the experiment. This game is to be played with a minimum of eight people and a maximum of eighty, though twenty-five is the ideal amount of participants. The goal of the experiment is to pick two random individuals that will become your reference points, and at a directed time move slowly around the room until you are at an equal distance from your two reference points. With that many people moving about it seems like complexity and chaos could have been extreme, but they seemed to work themselves out during the experiment. What I thought would take at least ten to fifteen minutes took less than a minute according to Obolensky (2012). That was surprisingly quick! But what would have been the result if a leader was appointed to be in charge of the experiment? This question received a laugh from the participants on the video.

Why did this experiment go so effortlessly without leadership? According to Obolensky (2014), there are eight principles of leadership including clear individual objective, a few simple rules, continuous feedback, freedom of action, skill/will of participants, purpose, a clear boundary, and a tolerance of players for uncertainty and unambiguity.  The game directed by Obolensky (2012) followed most of these rules leading to a successful balance of order and chaos.

The game consisted of one clear and simple objective- cease moving when you are an equal distance between your two reference points. Obolensky (2012) did explain a few simple rules. He said the participants should move slowly as to not disrupt the flow of the game. He also said that the participants are not allowed to reveal or talk to their reference points, though they will feel a strong urge to do so as the game continues. The final recommendation was to use all of the space provided. There would be a desire to crowd one another in an attempt to get closer to your reference points, but the game will work better if this desire is avoided. The participants also had freedom of action. They were allowed to choose how and where they move. The freedom of their action created empowerment.

The skill and will of participants were also elevated. Obolensky (2014) described that the majority of the time he holds this experiment, the participants are members of his graduate class. As these individuals are willing to learn, they are also willing to participate in the game. Since there is not much skill involved in the game, only walking, judging distance, and following directions (which, honestly, could be difficult individuals), anyone willing to participate has the skill to participate. This experiment also has a direct purpose- stop moving when you are equal distance from each reference point. But, it also serves a much larger purpose. The creator of the experiment hoped to reveal how chaos and complexity could be tackled and subdued without leadership.

The experiment also had a clear boundary. The participants were made aware of the boundaries and were asked to not cross the boundaries for the purpose of the experiment. The players were also forced to tolerate uncertainty. I am sure more than once a player thought they were an equal distance from each reference point only to have one of the other participants move, which could result in frustration. In business, leaders are forced to adapt to moving targets and this game literally had moving targets. The only principle that Obolensky (2014) warned to stay away from was continuous feedback. He stated that there would be a desire to step in and try to help, but doing so would skew the results.

So, what does this experiment imply to leadership and strategy? In this instance it proved less is more. This game could have been very complex and chaotic. The truth is that if a leader had been appointed then the experiment would not have been as smooth and would have taken much longer. An appointed leader would have mirrored the oligarchic system that makes up traditional hierarchies. So, this game played through the eyes of one individual would have been disastrous. Their strategy would have most likely been to move people around like puzzle pieces until, after a very long period of time and much frustration, each individual would be an equal distance from their chosen reference points. In my opinion, this proves that a strategy should be generated from each person participating in the organization. One person’s viewpoint or idea could lead to chaos.

In terms of chaos, this experiment proves that letting it play out usually results in success. I am sure the first time this research was directed by Obolensky (2012), he wanted to give direction during the process-I know I would.  But, he trusted the process, let complexity theory work itself out, and the result was a success.

This research experiment opened my eyes to how chaos could be simplified if the correct parameters are in place. I was a skeptic when introduced to the terms and rules of the game. But, the test proved that complexity and chaos are not always complex or chaotic.

References

Obolensky, N. (2012). Who needs leaders? Retrieved  from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Gower 

A633.4.3.RB- Changing dynamics of leadership- Trey McNeil

According to the common statement, the only thing that remains constant is change. Change is all around us and affects all portions of our lives. Strategies in an organization are no exception and should be expected to be altered. But where are these solutions and changes generated in the organization? In reference to business strategy, Obolensky (2014) asked: “Of the 100 percent of the solutions that actually make specific changes happen on the ground to get positive results, what percentage of solutions do you think originally came from/ are first thought at the top?” (p. 35). What would be your guess in relation to your organization? Do you think you and your “leader” would agree on the percentage?

As I contemplated this thought provoking question, my first thought was that the top must come up with most of the significant solutions that guide strategy. But then I had a debate with my pre-leadership student self and adjusted my answer. One thing I have learned throughout the journey in this program is that the false idea I had about leadership does not exist. The leadership program has taught me that leaders do not have to come from the top, they can come from anywhere in the organization.  My final answer was that the solutions that influence strategy were probably divided equally between the three groups (thirty-three percent each).

 So, where do the solutions come from?  Believe it or not, more than sixty percent of the solutions come from the bottom of an organization, and the top portion of the organization produces less than ten percent of the solutions! I bet not many people would have guessed that. So, it is evident that the thought about where leadership and ideas come from must change.

The general notion is that leaders create solutions because they are leaders and part of their job description is to correct the problems that occur in the organization. But, according to Obolensky (2014) leaders are beginning to change their thought process about solutions. One CEO, when faced with this question, answered that zero percent of solutions come from upper management. “We all understand it is not our job any longer” (Obolensky, 2014, p.36). According to Watkins (2012), leaders must begin to focus less on solving problems and begin to determine the problems the organization should be addressing.

Another reason the percentage at the top is dwindling is the changing of some organizational structures. There are some companies that are throwing away the playbook that says that a successful company must be a hierarchy.  According to Denning (2014), three companies who have broken away from the traditional structure and remained successful are Morningstar, Southwest, and Zappos. These three companies cut managers down to a minimal. No managers? How were they able to remain successful? More decisions, ideas, and solutions being made at the lower levels of the organization.

With more and more research being done on leadership and the structure of organizations, some companies are beginning to understand that the opinions of the employees on the bottom of the totem pole do have worth. Being a member of the bottom of the totem pole club, I believe the individuals who are more hands on with the work can provide valuable solutions and ideas. In retail, these employees are closer to the customer and know what they desire. Hamel (2011) stated that the most powerful managers, who are furthest away from the daily activities, tend to have the worst solutions.

I also believe that as members of the Millennials and Gen Z begin to infiltrate the workforce, the dynamics of leadership will continue to change. Millennials and Gen Z grew up win a world where nearly all information was quickly available. With the advent of the internet and smartphones, driven individuals had an opportunity for infinite knowledge. So, they have access to more ideas and are not used to waiting for others to come up with a solution. If they are determined, they will find a solution on their own, without the help of their leader or manager.

I would have to say my organization is like a child trying to pick out their toy at the store. They cannot make up their mind about the dynamics of leadership. I want to say that we are a company that is altering the traditional leadership role. Employee ideas are welcomed in my department. The Vice President allows for antiquated processes to be revamped. She also frequently asks our opinions in the monthly staff meeting, so in that aspect, I feel like we are moving away from the typical leadership cycle. But, the organization and department still operate under a traditional hierarchal silo and the culture that goes along with the silo is strong.

The managers are under the impression that they must know everything and fear that relinquishing any power or knowledge will make them a worse manager. When in reality, leadership would become greater if they were able to surrender knowledge and power. The greatest leader is not the person who knows everything about the goal; they are the individual who best knows how to help the team accomplish the goal.

The followers at my organization can also help to change the leadership culture. Followers must learn that they too are capable of creating changes and should speak up when they believe they have the solutions. According to Bielaszka-DuVernay (2009), individuals can offer thoughtful suggestions for improvement simply by providing honest feedback.

I believe my organization will have to begin creating a new culture for a shift in leadership to fully occur. Because I do not see the organization flattening anytime soon, followers will need to begin to provide more feedback and suggestions and managers will need to release power and allow for suggestions from the bottom to rise up. They could be surprised how helpful the ideas of the followers could be.

References

Bielaszka-DuVernay, C. (2014). How to lead when you're not the boss. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2009/02/how-to-lead-when-youre-not-the

Denning, S. (2014). No managers? No hierarchy?  No way! Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/04/18/no-managers-no-hierarchy-no-way/#3a95362728f9

Hamel, G. (2011). First, let's fire all the managers. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/12/first-lets-fire-all-the-managers

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Gower.

Watkins, M. (2012). How managers become leaders. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2012/06/how-managers-become-leaders

A633.3.4.RB- Complexity Science- Trey McNeil

Daytona Beach Junior College was founded in 1957 and in its inception did not even own any buildings. The stories I have heard during my tenure at the college reveal that the first classes were offered in a grocery store that was rented at night after closing. The first bookstore was the trunk of the professors’ cars. According to the History of Daytona State College (2010), the college’s three divisions included college credit, adult education, and vocational school. Obolensky (2014) stated that two approaches to strategy exist. One strategy reflects the yin while the other reflects the yang. The intended strategy (yang) consists of analysis and is the more traditional approach. The emergent strategy (yin) is the more dynamic of the two approaches.

I can imagine the intended strategy of the inaugural president of Daytona Beach Junior College to be to hire the best professors, provide the best material, and offer the lowest prices in the Daytona Beach area in route to accomplishing the mission of the college of providing a great education in each student’s chosen field. As time passed and the number of students began to grow, the president and staff had to adapt a new strategy that included acquiring a campus and offering more programs.   I imagine the feedback was minimal to all employees and that the strategy of the college in its infancy relied mostly with the president and upper level staff. Obolensky (2014) said that if individuals are not involved in the development of the strategy then they tend to have less understanding of the strategy, and I can envision that being the case in the early days of the college.

The college that began in 1957 as Daytona Beach Community College without an owned classroom is now known as Daytona State College (DSC). DSC has seven campuses in central Florida and has an enrollment of nearly seventeen thousand students. What began as a two year junior college with three divisions now offers over one hundred certificate, associate, and degree programs (History of Daytona State College, 2010).The small junior college has seen a lot of changes over the last sixty years. Though the goal of offering a quality education at competitive prices has not changed, the strategy has evolved and adapted over the years.

At some point during the college’s life, a board was developed to govern the college. The board members were selected by the Governor of the state of Florida and serve three year terms. This change resulted in the strategy development no longer lying in the hands of the college president. The board would now guide the college to success or failure and would be the main conductor of the college’s strategy. Having a board in place also changed the feedback at the college. In the traditional hierarchy of a silo, the board added another level of leadership which most likely resulted in the lower level employees being even less informed.

Being in the accounting department of the college, I generally do not feel like I am part of the organization’s strategy. Our interdepartmental strategy is to submit clean reports to the State of Florida and conduct clean audits by following all laws and audit guidelines. Obolensky (2014) discussed that strategies can be defined by how fixed or fluid they are and that strategies should be clear so followers will take initiative. Over the last 2 years, the strategy at DSC has gone through changes that are even visible in our department.

Being a subdivision of the state of Florida, DSC receives state funds each year that are a crucial part of our operational budget. Prior to 2014, each of the 26 community colleges in the state of Florida would get an equal piece of the state funds. In 2014, it was announced that a ranking system would be developed and the colleges would receive funds based on the rankings.  The areas that were involved in the rankings included: completion rates, average years to graduation, average salary after graduation, amount of time it takes to earn employment, matriculation rates, GPA, etc.

The initial rankings showed DSC at the bottom creating two results.  First, the college’s share of the revenue was reduced. Secondly, one half of the awarded revenue was held until the college could prove that they had a plan in place to increase the performance that resulted in the poor ranking. The strategy of the college shifted to increasing the areas that were included in the rankings.

Working with local employers, the college was able to create a network that would text and email students local employment opportunities in their field to help reduce the time it takes for students to earn employment.  The Admissions department began devoting their attention to working with students who were facing issued with matriculation. The goal was to make sure all admitted students enrolled in a class before the matriculation deadline. The enrollment department began working with students to attempt to enroll them in each semester. The mission was to make sure that students seeking a  two year degree earned the degree on time and the same mission existed for the for year degree. With the mission and strategy clear to all employees of the college, DSC was able to raise their ranking from a third tier college in the initial rankings to a second tier college in the second rankings. The strategy for the college has been forced to adapt over the last couple of years and the new strategies support the goal of becoming a top tier college every year.

If I had to guess the next stage in the evolution of DSC and where the college will be in ten years, it would be extremely difficult to do so. Over the nine years I have been employed at the college I have seen two presidents whose contracts were not renewed, two CFO’s whose contacts were not renewed, and three controllers in my department. I have witnessed bad economic times where enrollment skyrocketed resulting in new programs being added and great economic times where the college was forced to lay off employees. The strategy of offering classes online has also grown exponentially in the time I have spent at the college. With the new ranking system, I would expect DSC to continue to strategize on how to increase their performance on the judged areas. As technology changes, I could also see DSC adapting to the changes and offering more technology friendly classrooms.

I would never want to make a guess about where I will be in ten years in my relation to the company, but with the increased knowledge of leadership and logistics I am gaining through my Masters journey, I am hoping to bring a leadership and logistical view that will help to develop and implement the strategy at DSC.

References

History of Daytona State College. (2010). Retrieved from https://www.daytonastate.edu/catalog/facts/history.html

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Gower.

A633.3.3.RB- Complex Adaptive Leadership

The business world we operate in today is fast-paced and intertwined. Organizations today must have the ability to react and adapt to the changes that occur or they could become obsolete. Due to the progressing circumstances, Obolensky (2014) made his thoughts on organizational development very clear. He boasted that organizational evolution equaled survival. The typical functional silo or hierarchal organization, which we all most likely work for, is becoming outdated. According to Obolensky (2014), this type of organization is beginning to fail due to them being very expensive and too slow. The second stage in the evolution of organizations is cross-functional matrices.

Compared to hierarchal silos, cross- functional matrices are more efficient. In this type of organization, functions are spread throughout the entire organization creating faster reaction times. Obolensky (2014) warned that this type of organization will prosper in a vacuum that faces no external changes, but tensions will appear as external changes occur. The company will begin to alter organization functions in order to reduce costs, which will be the beginning of the end for cross-functional matrices. According to Obolensky (2014), “The trend is toward more cross-functionality and flatter hierarchies, with more informality and enablement” (p. 22). Enter complex adaptive systems (CAS) like a superhero to save all organizations.

Not all complex adaptive systems are the same, but they do share some common features including informal hierarchy, the rare formal hierarchy remains flat and is focused on meeting the needs of the stakeholders, pronounced emphasis on personal responsibility, open communication, underperformance is not tolerated, and clarity in the company’s processes. Like all companies, stresses will occur in a CAS, but according to Obolensky (2014), the pressures and strains that a CAS will face are natural and hint a healthy evolution. One company that Obolensky (2014) listed as a CAS was Johnsonville Foods, Inc.

Before this week’s reading and research, I did not know much about Johnsonville Foods, other than they made delicious bratwurst. But, an exploration into the company left me with a more informative and different view. The evidence that Johnsonville acts as a CAS is shown in its mission statement which reads, “Together, we will create an environment that requires each of us to fully develop our God-given talents” (Our Culture, n.d., n.p.). This mission statement goes along with the idea that CAS places an emphasis on personal responsibility. Johnsonville Foods also encourages each employee to live the Johnsonville way, which entails each employee being the best they can be (Our Culture, n.d.).  Johnsonville also believes that each team member should be held personably accountable to live up to their promises. Goals are set and plans are developed where each employee will make a promise to be personably accountable to each other team member.

Obolensky (2014) stated that a CAS involves the formation of teams. At Johnsonville teamwork is an essential part of the organization. Johnsonville believes that employees should work together to help each other succeed. The mention of teamwork and holding each team member personally accountable at Johnsonville hints that hierarchy is informal, flat, or non-existent Our Culture, n.d.).

Obolensky (2014) stated that, in general, a CAS is not a nice place to work, but Johnsonville attempts to squash that belief. Johnsonville not only offers traditional benefits such as great insurance, a 401K, and paid time off, they also offer profit sharing plans which will “put a contribution into your plan account based on a percentage of the company’s annual profits” (Indirects, n.d., n.p.).

My current organization does not share the same company style or beliefs as Johnsonville Foods. Unfortunately, I would classify my organization as a traditional silo-filled hierarchal system, but I would include an asterisk as a company suffering from an identity crisis. Most of the departments at the college operate as a hierarchal system. My department, the finance department, includes a lengthy chain of command. As an accountant, I report to the director or cash management, who reports to the Controller, who reports to the Vice President/Chief Financial Officer, who ultimately reports to the College President. From my position, that is a dizzying view up the hierarchal ladder. Unlike most CAS, Johnsonville included, the hierarchy at the college is neither informal nor flat.

The college also includes many of the traditional silos mentioned by Obolensky (2014) such as Admissions, Enrollment, Advising, Student Accounts, and Financial Aid. But, each department (or silo) depends on inter-department and intra-college teamwork, which is where the asterisk comes into play. In my department, I have been asked to be a part of a team several times.  I recall once being asked to be part of a finance-based team tasked with determining a new method to encumber student scholarships. This team worked together for several weeks to determine a new method and then disbanded. I have also been involved in several teams with other departments of the college. I was once asked to join a team including members of the department of student accounts, financial aid, the Foundation, and accounting to develop a new process to award scholarships.

The college also consists of many committees made up of members from various departments. Each committee or team is equally important in reaching the college goal of helping students. The college recently went through the process of updating to a new computer system, which caused glitches and problems all throughout the college. My supervisor was asked to be a part of a committee that helped develop queries to stop a glitch that would not allow students to pay for classes online. Just like Johnsonville, the College comes together to work as a team to create success for each employee and student as well.

Another similarity between my organization and a CAS is the emphasis on personal responsibility. Each month we have a departmental meeting and the VP always says two things at some point during the meeting. First, she talks about how blessed she is to have such a hardworking and competent staff (or the best staff at the college as she puts it). The second message she always works into the meeting is the importance of personal responsibility. She wants us to see the department as a team or family, but always makes clear that a team is only as strong as each member.

The VP of my department has also placed an emphasis on open communication in our monthly meetings. She makes it a point to tell her staff any vital information discussed in the president’s cabinet meetings.

So, what do I believe are appropriate actions that could be taken by the College or my department to move towards a CAS? First, I believe the hierarchy could be flattened. As I previously mentioned, the hierarchy in my department is very steep and that is common all throughout the college. Since reading about the structure that Zappos went to several years ago, I have been enamored with holacracy. I believe thinning out the middle management and implementing more teamwork would be a great idea to get the lower level employees more involved with the strategy of the company. Also, I believe processes could be less static and more flexible. I have been in several situations where I was told this is how we have to do things. I thought to myself, there are many other options that could be done to be successful in this scenario, so this is not how we have to do things, it is how we choose to do things.

I believe my organization is a great place to work. The comradery, teamwork,  and feeling of family is very strong. But, I do believe changes could be implemented to create a greater and more successful organization. As Obolensky (2014) suggested, most hierarchal silos eventually perish due to the cost and speed at which it operates.  It is suggested that these companies evolve or die. Though my company shows signs of evolution, I hope it gets the message and starts to completely evolve before it is too late.

References

Indirects. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://jobs.johnsonville.com/why-johnsonville/indirects.html

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Gower.

Our Culture. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://jobs.johnsonville.com/why-johnsonville/our-culture.html