Article Title:
Implications of Complexity Science for the Study of Leadership
Authors:
Russ Marion & Mary Uhl-Bien
Class: HOL6074 - Leadership Theory, Research and Practice
Prepared by:
Rick Sousane
Context & Overview
Purpose:
Describes emerging complexity perspectives of leadership and explores the differences
among these perspectives.
Audience:
Leadership Theory Researchers & Academics
Theoretical Base:
Research:
Complexity Leadership Theory
This is not a research study
Article Summary
1. Introduction
a. A number of leadership scholars and popular writers have recently focused attention on
organizational issues that cannot be effectively solved with traditional top-down
(centralized) leadership approaches.
b. These problems referred to as adaptive challenges.
c. Snowden and Boone (2007), with minor liberties, would define these issues as Cynefin,
pronounced ku-nev-In.
d. Adaptive issues can be categorized as environmental problems that are too complex to
be easily resolved or that require social engagement and support.
e. Solutions that are being proposed for dealing with adaptive problems are broadly
covered by Ross Ashbys (1960) famous dictum: It takes complexity to defeat complexity.
2. Definitions, Questions and Assumptions
a. Complexity theory is defined by Coveney (2003) as the ’study of the behavior of large
collections of ... simple, interacting units, endowed with the potential to evolve with
time.
b. Colandar (2000) adds that complexity is the study of how many interacting units can
produce relatively simple behavioral patterns.
c. Applied to organizations, organizational complexity is a science of survival and
productivity in very complex, turbulent environments and complexity leadership is the
application of complexity science to the study of leadership in organizations and their
environments.
d. Complexity leadership theorists have noted the potential for complex dynamics to
enhance the responsiveness of organizations to complex environments.
3. Theories of Complexity Leadership
a. There is relatively uniform agreement among theorists studying complex leadership on
the basics of complexity theory, such as interactive network dynamics, emergence,
unpredictability, uncertainty, and pressure.
b. Underlying Science - some perspectives of complexity leadership do differ somewhat
because of the underlying science with which they associate.
c. Major orientation - some differ in the aspects of complexity theory the authors choose
to emphasize
d. The role of management - another significant difference lies in the assumptions of the
various approaches about the management role in complex dynamics, particularly as it
relates to control of complex dynamics.
4. Issues in Complexity Leadership - there are several basic questions that are typically asked In
complexity leadership studies; focus on four such questions as we further develop complexity
premises.
a. Why study leadership and organizations as complex dynamics?
i. Theorists have ignored or attempted to finesse complexity in their observations.
ii. Social scientists are beginning to understand that it takes complexity to defeat
complexity.
iii. The modern economic environment is highly complex.
b. How do leaders foster complex dynamics? - leaders do not create complexity for it is too
complex to be created (Kauffman, 1993, 1995); rather, they enable the conditions in
which complexity can emerge
c. How does complexity coexist with bureaucracy? - bureaucracy and complexity coexist
effectively when those In positions of authority acknowledge the existence and
importance of complexity dynamics, and supplement their roles with enabling
behaviors.
d. Does complexity point to alternative ways to perceive leadership? - There are certain
informal influence and change dynamics occurring in complex systems three are not
restricted to those In positions of authority, and are not necessarily imbued in the most
articulate or friendly or respected people.
e. Emerging Trends and Directions - there are various emerging trends in the field of
complexity leadership.
i. Hedstrom and Swedberg (1998a) have labeled, social mechanisms, as core
dynamics that complexity leadership engenders or by which it acts. Social
mechanisms, or perhaps more properly, interactive dynamics, are patterns of
activity.
ii. A second trend Is the emergence of complexity as a strategic leadership
approach.
iii. A third trend relates to works of House et al. (1995) and Rousseau and House
(1994) and, more recently, the Interest of Jerry Hunt (Hunt and Dodge, 2000),
have encouraged this science to consider the Implications of complexity science
as a meso theory of leadership. Meso theory is defined by House et al. (1995) as
’...a simultaneous study of at least two levels of analysis wherein (a) one or
more levels concerns individual or group behavioral processes or variables, (b)
one or more levels concern organizational processes or variables, and (c) the
processes by which the levels of analysis are related are articulated in the form
of bridging or linking, proposition
iv. Another trend Involves leadership of extreme events, such as disasters and
other highly volatile events.
5. Challenges for Future Development
a. The field of complexity is developing rapidly, and each new question addressed by
complexity leadership theorists spawns more questions.
i. What is context in complexity study?
ii. How does one dismantle complexity dynamics such as terrorist networks?
iii. How do leaders deal with dysfunctional complexity?
iv. Can organizational conflict be explained relative to complex dynamics and If so,
what is the role of complexity leadership in this process?
v. Power and control may be anathema to complexity dynamics, yet power
pervades modern organizations. How are we to deal with this problem?
b. Two issues of particular importance that must be addressed as this field moves forward.
i. Need for an ethical framework for the study and practice of complexity
leadership.
ii. Tackle is increasing the number of research studies in complexity leadership
theory, refining research methodology for complexity dynamics, and making
methodology accessible to scholars.
6. Discussion
a. Possibly the greatest challenge for scholars and practitioners trying to understand and
practice complexity theory and complexity leadership Is In relaxing their attachment to
traditional perspectives of leadership and grasping the way complexity perceives
organizational behavior.
b. The bulk of leadership theories assume that the leader is the center of change,
maneuvering and motivating players and directing organizational response as issues
arise. Complexity theory goes beyond this…
c. Social behavior is disordered (Stacey, 2001); its local unit of analysis is the dynamic
mechanism more than the variable (Uhl-Bien and Marion, 2009); control is at best just
one of many influence acts and at worst, delusional (Streatfield, 2001); anything but the
immediate future is likely unpredictable (Colandar, 2000); and organizational
knowledge, problems, and successes are the product of collectivist dynamics more than
of any one person.
d. Complexity is a non-positivistic perspective of causal logic and methodology. Outcomes
are more the products of complex interactive dynamics than variable relationships.
Complexity does not entirely reject positivistic thinking (also called, methodological
individualism; see Hedstrom and Swedberg, 1998a, b) and admits that complex systems
can, in some contexts, exhibit patterned behavior that might be analyzed statistically.
7. Conclusion
a. Complexity itself Is a hyper-Interactive, adaptive, constantly morphing, networked
process that Is productive of surprising creativity and adaptability.
b. Organizational complexity is useful for functioning in complex, or adaptive,
environments (Heifetz, 1994). It is being used by armed forces to fight terrorism
(network-centric warfare; see Cebrowski and Garstka, 1998), by Microsoft to program
their exceedingly complex software programs (Cusumano, 2001) and at Sun
Microsystems to enable complex problem solving in a competitive, globalized
environment (Cross, 2007).
c. What is complexity leadership and how does it function in this context? Uhl-Bien et al.
(2007) have conceptualized three forms of leadership that operate in complex
organizations: adaptive leadership, enabling leadership and administrative leadership.
These three forms generally represent much of what is happening in the field (albeit
from different perspectives and with different emphases).
d. Enabling leadership fosters the conditions in which complex dynamics can emerge, and
is usually associated with managerial positions. We chose the word, enabling,
purposefully. Complex dynamics cannot be created from a blueprint; rather, they must
be allowed to emerge. Thus the role of enabling leadership is to foster rather than
specify, to frame rather than build, and to guide rather than manage. Enabling leaders
create conditions for complexity; they also champion promising emergent ideas, help
redirect ideas that are inconsistent with organizational mission, and protect emergent
ideas and complex dynamics.
e. What is different about complexity is its perception of the context in which leadership is
embedded and, consequently, of the manner in which leadership is conducted. It claims
that leadership is not just about individuals, it is an Interactive dynamic. Moreover,
leadership is a function of Interdependence and mechanisms rather than independent
individual behaviors and variables. Perhaps most importantly, leadership that fosters
change and the adaptive function in the organization happens in the informal dynamics
of a system as much, or more, than in the boardrooms.