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
No comments:
Post a Comment