A633.5.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A633.5.3.RB – Reflections on Chaos

            After watching the short clip on chaos and leadership, I found several things were brought to my attention. I have never experienced or watched this exercise before, thus leading my brain to play the guessing game about the final outcome. For instance, throughout the short clip I was trying to predict what was going to happen. I thought surely there would be chaos, that people would not be able to accurately split the difference between their two points without messing someone else’s distance; therefore, it would almost become an endless chaotic loop. Not only did I think that the entire exercise was going to be completely unorganized, I also envisioned the group physically running into each other by running to their places.

            However, my prediction was wrong. After, 2 or 3 seconds of predicting the outcome, the group began to move slowly and controlled. They knew whom they had picked and no one else did, and as time went on they moved less and less until they all found their spot in under a minute. Assuming that they all ended up half way between their two references, they accomplished this effectively and rather quickly. The individuals became a system working together towards a final state seemingly disorganized, but did so in a very rhythmic manner. They were like gears turning and moving until they came to an organized stop.

            This exercise is a prime example of the chaos theory in many ways. Obolensky (2010) stated that chaos theory “shows how chaos has an underlying order and patterns which can be used to good effect.” He also quotes the book Nature’s Numbers in saying that “to an untrained eye it looks pretty much random.” In relation to the exercise, there was an underlying order although they did not move in expected paths, each person had a goal and it depended on all of the other individuals and that is what created their path. To the audience these paths looked completely random and unorganized. At times it even looked as if people were moving aimlessly and then suddenly stopped in place. This explains step for step the definition of the chaos theory because many factors internal and external affected the underlying patterns that occurred in the exercise. These patterns have a bit of order and purpose; however, to an outsider chaos is scary.

            Patterns and purpose are sometimes hard to see and understand, which lead to implications in organizational strategy. It is nearly impossible to predict chaos before or during it, and that makes strategizing difficult. In its nature, strategy is based on a future state and chaos theory is there to let organizations know not to get too far ahead because one will not always know or understand what could potentially happen. 

References

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. (2^nd Edition). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.

A633.4.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A633.4.3.RB – Changing Dynamics of Leadership

            The shift in leadership is happening more and more today as we see many organizations that are restructuring themselves, kind of reinventing if you will, to be better than before. I believe a lot of it has to do with more and more people who work the front lines on a daily basis, standing up and saying enough is enough. More employees are becoming frustrated with their organizations because the people who were picked to lead them do not know the solutions to most problems. This leaves the lower level employees wondering what the heck happened to knowing and understanding the job at hand no matter what that job may be.

            Some companies deal with this by hiring and promoting from within their organization (I have seen this in some retail stores, as I have worked for Dick’s Sporting Goods). This way a manager knows how the organization works from bottom to top and can actually come up with solutions instead of playing that charade of hoping no one asks them a question they cannot answer. Having someone who starts out at the “bottom” and works their way up can actually help upper management get a better grip on what is happening in their own organization. 

            There has to be open communication from the top down and from the bottom up. We have to ask questions and not bluff our way out of it with some ideal of what we think is the right answer. With more organizations becoming more complex, we have to be able to adapt and change by asking questions, blurring that line a bit between leaders and followers and understanding how to stay in the know instead of getting lost in the management mentality. Getting feedback from your followers lets them know that you want their suggestions and thoughts of what works and what does not. Leaders cannot hide behind their big desks and expect their organization to run smoothly.

            One way to do this is to be the example of what you want. If you expect your front-line workers to know how to perform certain functions, you, as the leader need to know how to do this as well. For example, it has been my experience with different jobs, where managers expect results from their followers, but when they are asked to demonstrate a task of anything in particular; they are unaware on how to proceed.  How can followers rely on their managers to help them when they do not know the answers themselves?

            In my organization there has been a lot of changes recently that I feel were made to better serve the patients as well as the organization itself.  Hiring and putting different people in charge of different areas will have a positive impact overall. A big part of change comes from the fact that my manager is that type of leader that everyone wants to be like or are jealous of because of how well she gets alone with everyone and how welcoming and helpful she can be. She started as a medical assistant and worked her way up to practice manager and was recently selected as the Vice Presidents of the Podiatry Medical Assistant’s organization. She truly leads by example and never says she cannot help us. She makes time for our problems and us, whether they are personal or work related. Additionally, she has never yelled when you mess something up, but instead, she will ask you how can you fix it and how you can make it better next time. My manager empowers her employees and there is open communication. She also gets our feedback and asks us questions. These are the things that help make a good leader great.  

            She also asks what challenges we each face and what we think can make it better. For example, we send out many emails explaining changes that happen and we follow up with training so that medical and front desk assistants can get the information shown to them in a training setting, where they can feel they can ask questions and get clarification as needed. All these things are what will make a good organization better and help everyone embrace changes for the better.

A633.3.4.RB_DellElceCamila

A633.3.4.RB – Complexity Science

            The organization, which I work for, has evolved over time through trial and error, we work using a complex system that is sensitive to change and each individual involved must be adaptable to the circumstances. Furthermore, changes in leadership have helped develop the organization to teach each person within the department to work autonomously to be as efficient as possible. Obolensky (2010) stated that personal feedback is done to evolve in an organization from the typical one-way process of boss to subordinate towards a more fluid and inclusive 360-degree approach. This also places self-correcting responsibility on an individual rather than controlling from the top.

            In order for the organization to continue to develop and evolve strategy development is needed. Through the evolution of strategy Obolensky (2010) explained that there is a move away from content of what the strategy is to process of how the strategy is evolving. Organizations must continue to develop and change as time, technology, and demand happen. Therefore, the organization I work for will continue to progress and changes of leadership, management, and practices will continue to evolve and adjust, as strategies need to change. One means of finding out what is working currently and what is no longer needed is sending out surveys to patients and employees, this helps guide the changes needed and provides feedback that leadership can use to make adjustments where necessary.

              In 10 years, I hope to be done with medical school and practice as a doctor, and to change how the health organization leads their employees. I would like to obtain a position, in which, my leadership skills will come in handy and teach others the magic of team and ethical work. There is really no way to know what exactly will happen in ten years from today, but I can certainly say, that I will always advocate for organizations to have leadership more so than management. As Heraclitus said, “Change is the only constant in life.”

Reference

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. (2^nd Edition). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.

A633.3.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A633.3.3.RB – Complex Adaptive Systems

            Module three of this course focused on the movement of the traditional corporate hierarchy. It started with an understanding of the past (functional silos), to the present model. We now have a cross-functional matrix, to what Nick Obolensky, author of “Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty” refers to as what future innovative companies will call a Complex Adaptive System (2010). In the CAS system, traditional management levels have been removed, flattening the organization’s hierarchy. Employees, at all levels, now have increased responsibility and greater control over how they perform their job. For this task, I was asked to find a company that reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS). St. Luke is a small British company that has adapted an aggressive CAS strategy. Some very prominent business critics have described this company as experiencing a monumental growth spurt. This little company has the determination of “the little engine that could” when it comes to its goal to reach the global market.

            My first thought process was to look at Zappos, a shoe company developed by CEO, Tony Hsieh. His company has gained the reputation of a work environment that is about people who believe in shoes and the importance of customer service, not about profit; thus blowing away the shoe industry by breaking the mold. If you research the company and its organizational core values you will see something different; the ten organizational core values never mention profit. 

            However, I soon discovered there was a company that more closely reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS). The company I am referring to is Valve Corp., a videogame maker in Bellevue, Washington. The company was founded in 1996 by former Microsoft software developers Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington. Like St Luke’s, the most astonishing aspect of life at Valve Corp is that there are no bosses. In this successful organization, there is no explicit hierarchy. Employees, at every level, are involved in hiring and firings, which can be initiated by something as simple as a conversation between employees. Here bonuses are based on peer reviews (not management or leadership) and can be as large as 10 times an employee’s base pay. Now as great as this may sound, it is important to understand that such based spontaneous enterprises rely to a large extent on individuals who actually believe in the social norms that govern their existence. 

            This system could potentially work for my current organization, the medical field for numerous reasons. Having such a system requires taking a lot of risk. The health administration department, which is ruled by the government, is a profit based organization and it operates a normal everyday business. Sometimes, success is measured by achieving set objectives; however, often times the objectives are not tangible. I do, however believe the health administration can learn from the CAS process. They could start the process by learning about and implementing better ways to understand all internal and external stakeholders. Like Zappos, they can learn how to developing a plan to achieve specific financial and budgetary goals (Glassman, 2013). Last but not least, I feel it is important the medical facilities, etc., learn the company culture is something that many corporations take for granted, not realizing how important it actually is to employee morale, work quality, and overall success.

References

Glassman, B. (2013). What Zappos Taught Us About Creating The Ultimate Client Experience. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2013/05/13/what-zappos-taught-us-about-creating-the-ultimate-client-experience/

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Unlimited.

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

A633.2.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A633.2.3.RB – Butterfly Effect

            The Butterfly Effect is something I heard about many years ago. I didn’t really understand what it meant other than it was part of a chaos theory in that if a butterfly flaps its wings in Hawaii there will be an earth quake in South America or something similar to this. There was also a movie called The Butterfly Effect (2004) where the main character Eric has the ability to change things by focusing his mind he could go back to a time period and make subtle changes. When something bad happens to his friend he tries to go back to change just that one thing but instead it changes everything. Each time he goes back to fix what he messed up he made things worse. The premise of the movie is, change one thing change everything. In this case, the take away is that small choices can have the biggest impact in anybody’s life.

         Under the concept of chaos theory, attractors are “plots of movement in phased space” and “most have a specific and easily understandable pattern” (Obolensky, 2010, p. 69). An attractor that does not follow such a pattern is known as the butterfly effect. In the 1960s, Edward Lorenz, a meteorologist attempting to develop a comprehensive computer model of global weather, discovered that insignificant changes in temperature, pressure, and wind speed resulted in significant differences in the outcomes of the simulation. When he graphed his findings, they resembled the wings of a butterfly and the butterfly effect was born (Obolensky, 2014).  When you apply this effect to organizations it reminds us “small changes can yield large results” (Obolensky, 2014, p.71). Such changes can be positive or negative.

            So unlike the movie where one small change caused more chaos, making a small change within your organization can yield very big results. A prime example of this is when my organization decided to go with a call center to answer all patient and non-patients calls about six months ago. By simply routing our calls to one central location that was open 24/7 our new patient’s visits went up, customer satisfaction went up, and a substantial amount of money was earned, which in turn, made upper management very happy. Just one change created vast improvement within the whole organization because the issue of not being able to keep up with the call volume, we were losing patients, and ultimately, the staff was overworked and stress for no reason.

            Another example; I recall when Facebook started to become popular; everyone was posting personal things about themselves online. When our human resources personnel were considering an applicant for employment, they started checking out the candidate’s Facebook pages before they would offer permanent positions. It is absolutely amazing what people post for the world to see. By implementing this new way to vet potential employees, many candidates lost their opportunity to work in our organization. This small change resulted in a whole new tool for recruiting (or not). After many years, our human resource department continues to utilize Facebook as a tool to do some “background check” on applicants.

            By implementing the complexity theory into our organization we can learn that we may not always have the same views and may even work independently of each other but the goal is still the same in the end. We can also use the Wu-Wei approach by observing without taking immediate action and actually learn a lot about our followers and our customers. It can also be used to show that it is ok to let go of certain control and the fear of chaos reigning will not be an issue in most of the cases. 

            We continue to make small changes to better improve our relationship with customers, in these case patients, and the organization as a whole towards a vastly changing future. By adapting and embracing change and understanding the complexity instead of being afraid of it we can propel ourselves to the next level. Right now there are many changes happening within our organization that will put into place a better strategy for the operation as a whole. Some changes may not make sense at first, especially to those who have a hard time embracing change but as it is being implemented, everyone will learn to adapt to change as well. Progress is inevitable and cannot be stopped. It will happen with or without us.

References

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. (2^nd Edition). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate.