Reflections on Chaos

There is an exercise designed to open your mind and gain insight to how complexity can work in a group setting. This exercise, or game, can be played with 8 - 80 people, has established boundaries and rules, and purposefully leaves the participants guessing as to how the objective will be attained. The game goes something like this:

After establishing the out-of-bounds area of the game have everyone stand randomly about the area. The objective is pick two other people at random (without letting them know who you picked) and move yourself within equal distance from them. As they move and adjust you move and adjust, but the game is over when everyone is equal distance from their chosen points of reference.

Once the game begins, and after a few chuckles of uncertainty from the participants, the objective usually is completed within a few minutes (followed by a few more chuckles at the ease at which the objective was reached). Now... the catch.

The person overseeing the game then asks how much longer would this exercise have taken if they had ONE person leading the efforts. The overall response is... FOREVER!

The purpose of the game is to demonstrate how simple complexity can be. With eight very simple principles a random group of people unified in an underlying purpose can achieve and objective laced with complexity and uncertainty, and in less time than most would imagine. Here are those eight principles:

1. Clear Individual Objective
2. A Few Simple Rules
3. Clear Boundaries
4. Continuous Feedback
5. Skill/Will of the Participants
6. Discretion and Freedom of Action
7. Underlying Purpose
8. Ambiguity and Uncertainty

How can these principles and this game have an affect on strategy? Sounds like a complex question, but the answer is as simple as the results of the exercise. Strategy is what we want to accomplish down the road. With a few rules, boundaries, and a purpose there are many ways to accomplish the long range goals. Strategies can be broad, but the actions to get there can be small and fluid.

The lesson here is that even though complexity and uncertainty exist all around us we can maneuver to accomplish our objectives. The eight principles are not some astrophysical equation. They are easy steps, and all of them are innate within a good organization.

As leaders we should embrace the resilience and collective knowledge of our people. We should be observers in our environments and make small adjustments when necessary. We must learn to use complexity and uncertainty to our advantage and allow others to grow and gain experience through their efforts. We might live in a complex world, nation, and organization, but there is always simplicity with good leadership.

JP

Changing Dynamics of Leadership

In 1964 Bob Dylan released a prophetic song titled The Times They are a-Changin.

"Come gather 'round people wherever you roam. And admit that the waters around you have grown. And accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone. If your time to you is worth savin' then you better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone. For the times they are a-changin."

The times are most definitely changing, and so is the concept of leadership. The old hierarchical approach to running a business is slow and outdated in today's fast paced and well connected world. The speed at which business moves must equal the speed of change within an organization for it to remain viable in a chosen market. But, how does change become effected? It comes through communication. It comes by the top leadership communicating the mission down the chain and the bottom communicating up what they need to make it happen. Business is now a two-way street.

Obolensky describes the leadership charade well in his book Complex Adaptive Leadership. It looks something like this... the leaders at the top acting like they have all the answers and their omniscient vision will lead the company to the promise land while those on the front lines complain around the water cooler that the top has no idea which way they are steering. The solution to this age old problem is a paradox of complexity and simplicity wrapped around communication and understanding of the roles each "level" plays in the grand scheme of things. I will touch on this a little later.

First, let's identify a few reasons this shift in leadership is occurring. Bob Dylan had it right when he said the times are changing. In today's world fast is steady and slow is dead. Organizations, large and small, need to be fluid to compete. This means that in order to work effectively towards a common goal people at the top need to know what is going on at the bottom. Now, I am not insinuating that the CEO needs to know how to do the job of the line operator, but they need to know how the basic processes work. Conversely, The front line worker does not need to know how the CFO manages the money, but they should understand how their work contributes to the bottom line.

Currently I am stationed on one of the Navy's most impressive floating platforms ever conceived... the aircraft carrier. In essence, this floating city is capable of delivering air superiority to the far reaches of the globe at a moments notice. The pieces in motion to make this ship function are mind blowing to say the least, and we have established a pretty good system that ensures the harmonious operation of our ship. It takes team work. The captain is overall in charge of the entire ship. However, I would not expect the skipper to be able to run the reactor or coordinate the supply lines for an underway replenishment anymore than I would expect a deck-seaman to oversee flight ops. We do expect the captain to be in tune to our needs and general understanding of what each department needs to carry out their mission effectively. This takes an incredible amount of communication up and down the chain of command. And this is how we answer our nation's call at the drop of a hat anytime... anywhere.

Solutions to problems typically come from those who face the issues creating the problem. If the security department onboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower needs second-chance vests to increase their survivability in the event of a gun fight they would send that request up the chain. With approval of such a request we would expect our top leaders to provide these vests to the men and women standing posts. Problem solved. If the top tier commanders feel like we need to add additional security measures to tighten up the ship's force protection then they pass that down the chain and we (at the bottom) make it happen. They let us know the mission, we let them know what we need, and that is how we maneuver through our ever changing strategic events that make up a Navy Day.

This is what I was talking about earlier... the old leadership charade dissolves when people know their places within an organization, communicate their needs up and down the chain of command, and work together to implement solutions to the problems we encounter along the way. Leadership is now more about listening and responding than forcing and telling. This change in leadership dynamics also dictates the strategy of leadership within an organization. Find out what works and make it happen. That is the new role of strategic leadership in this ever a-changin world.

JP

Complex Adaptive Systems

How amazing would it be to have a job where there are no bosses? What if you had the ability and authority to bottom line a purchase for the new ergonomic office chair you've been wanting to replace that old uncomfortable one you've been sitting in for too long. Would this type of work environment "work" for you? If you answered yes then you might want to consider changing jobs to a self-managed company like Morning Star, St. Luke's Advertising, or Gore Creative Technologies.

There is undisputed evidence that the nature of business is changing on a global scale. Technological advances, improved communications, and a world wide transportation network have linked more people together to form new frontiers in global enterprise. Nick Obolensky discusses the natural evolution of the corporate structure in his book Complex Adaptive Leadership. He describes the traditional organization as a functional silo where each department works independently from the other. Established hierarchical levels of management oversee the level below, and inter-departmental communication may only happen at the company Christmas party once a year. This business model reminds me of the movie Office Space where Peter is telling the "Bobs" how he has eight different bosses, so when he makes a mistake he has to hear it from eight different people.

From the functional silos a transition to cross functional matrix is the next evolutionary step. CFMs allow for a higher degree of efficiency with a more open communication structure than its predecessor. The focus is on the output instead of the input and restructuring is necessary to streamline some processes. Eventually the need to keep up with a changing environment will become stifling for the organization and the organization will make a move towards a more dynamic complex adaptive system which is even more fluid and efficient... or they face becoming outdated.

The complex adaptive system model is a very unique structure that blends efficiency with fluidity. They are people focused, technologically advanced, transparent, and incorporate adaptability as a strategy. This model is constantly on the move within its environment. It is designed to "flow" with the changing needs of its market and demands. It also a fair assessment to state that this model may very well be the future of global enterprise.

A recent Forbes article on this emerging trend of self-managing CASs states a mere 3% of companies in a survey are actually self managed. The concepts of companies like Morning Star which makes tomato byproducts are captivating to those who work in the other 97%. At Morning Star there are no bosses. Employees work on a self generated mission statement governing their actions and responsibilities to the company. They are bound by a Colleague Letter of Understanding and are subject to an annual peer review to ensure each employee is living up to the standards they have set for themselves. In the Morning Star culture there are no titles and high-powered seats of authority. Oh, and the company earns an annual revenue of around 700 million! Think that turns some heads?

Will this business model work for any company? The answer is an astounding NO. While companies like Morning Star, St. Luke's, and Gore have used this CAS concept to create a completely adaptive work environment with employee "ownership" this would hardly be feasible for a corporation like Shell, BP, or Halliburton. I actually witnessed a commanding officer in the Navy turn a sickly shade of green when I asked him how our ship would run if we had no Chiefs or officers and everyone would be accountable for their own areas of responsibilities. It just wouldn't work in large corporations spanning several continents. It works well for the 3,000 at Morning Star, but not so much for a Navy with over 350,000 enlisted personnel.

Another barrier holding back complex adaptive systems from spreading through the corporate world like wild fire is that not everyone is able to govern themselves without a boss or manager telling them what to do. Let's face it... we have a lot of order takers in the labor force. The very concept of being "boss" has its assumptions of high salaries, cushy offices, and many perks with little actual work. If we just let everyone become their own bosses how much work would actually get done?

This idea of evolution takes place over time. There is no doubt that as newer generations become more reliant on available technologies to work smarter instead of harder a cultural shift might take place in the near future and grow into what we see at Morning Star. At the end of the day if it works for you... use it. If processes need to be changed to remain viable change them, or risk being left behind in the pages of corporate history. As for me... I think I will keep an eye on self-managing companies. After six years in the Navy I kind of like the idea of being my own boss.

JP

Butterfly Effect

This week we overlay some interesting theories of complexity with strategic leadership. One of these theories is the butterfly effect which can be described as a catalytic change beginning with relatively small circumstances that  amass large implications over time.

The butterfly effect is in stark contrast of the first law of thermodynamics, otherwise known as the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that the effort injected will dictate the results received. Organizations, especially in today's dynamic organizational environment, often see dramatic results from the smallest changes in policies, markets, and economies. In other words, sometimes the greatest achievements are the results of the most random accidents.

An example of the butterfly effect in my organization, the US Navy, can be seen in some recent events regarding active shooters in the the Washington DC Naval ship yards in 2013 and in March 2014 on the Destroyer USS Mohan in Norfolk, VA. These random and unforeseen events both have had impacts that will change how we conduct business in securing our Naval assets for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, these implications are more of a reactionary measure, but none the less will have large results in force protection throughout the Fleet. As a leader of a security section on board the aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower we are already enacting policy changes to step up our game and protection of our vital assets.

Another example of the butterfly effect occurred in the air traffic control facility in Key West 2010. As controllers we are constantly training our replacements in specific positions. When the training process was halted for a mere two months by our senior enlisted leadership the effects were felt around one year afterward when we had a lapse in qualified personnel able to keep the facility operational. By summer of 2011 we had only two facility supervisors to cover a 7 day a week/18 hours a day operation. Not only did we control military aircraft, but we were the terminal radar control for Key West International Airport. These two supervisors were working exhausting hours for weeks on end (which is not the safest situation when so many lives were in our hands) all because a senior chief decided to "teach" us a lesson and stop our training. Fortunately, we made it through that tough period with zero incidents which is a direct result of incredible fortitude of those controllers and our team. However, this is a prime example of a small decision having potentially huge repercussions down the road.

Understanding the butterfly effect can shed light on how we as leaders make decisions. We have to take into considerations the long term effects our decisions can have on our organizations. Rapidly changing environments in the global economy are driving new parameters in which we work and lead. We will constantly be challenged with new scenarios that will direct the course of our organizations. We must be vigilant to the concepts of chaos and complexity and be prepared to make sound decisions that will have a positive effect in both the short and long term. Understanding that small changes can yield large results is a resounding reality for today's leaders.

JP