A633.2.3.RB_MaceRoyce
Based on this week's reading, reflect on complexity science and theory in organizations and the butterfly effect (p.66).
Identify 2 examples where “small changes yield large results” in your organization. What are the implications of complexity theory for you and your organization and how can you use this to drive improvements.
Complexity science and butterfly effect are two concepts that we are relatively familiar with as scholars, but now have the opportunity to reflect on in terms of leadership. We commonly see both concepts as they relate to science, mathematics, and even popular culture (the movie "The Butterfly Effect"). Through this module, we can now see how these two concepts can be applied to and used to our advantage in leadership.
The easiest way to exemplify and reflect on both complexity science and butterfly effect for me would be by relating them to my own job as an air traffic controller. If two aircraft start at the same place and time and on parallel courses, little to no change will occur in their relativity to each other. However, if I give either aircraft a one degree change in heading, they will eventually end up in very different geographical locations. This is my own personal analogy for the butterfly effect and one that I would assume will make sense to a wide range of individuals trying to conceptualize what butterfly effect is.
To further the affects of butterfly effect, we look at complexity science and the systems that could additionally alter that one degree difference in aircraft vector. Wind, atmospherics, and fuel consumption are all complex systems that can have a profound affect on the two aircraft as they diverge away from each other during the course (pun intended) of time and distance. Butterfly effect and complexity science become simplified and yet still complicated as we look at this scenario all-inclusively.
In identifying two examples where "small changes yield large results", the first example of this in my organization comes in our hiring practices. While most organizations (including my own at one time) hired based on qualifications and experience. The most recent approach is a small change that has yielded large and positive results across the board. Instead of solely focusing on qualifications and experience, management decided to focus more on a potential hire's ability to work with others and within a team environment. This small change has mitigated co-worker and management conflicts and enabled the team to work more cohesively.
Secondly, a small change that yielded a large result came a few years ago. The organization decided to divide two larger suborganizations from within into four suborganizations. This allowed for a unique opportunity for those that had specialties within the two original suborganizations to focus on their own specialties and perform their functions more exclusively. Obolensky (2011) highlights the work of Collins in relation to catalytic mechanisms. Three specific mechanisms took place after the new hierarchical concept took place.
First, positions that were once needed in the original organizational construct were eliminated or reallocated to their respective suborganizations. Second, the new suborganizations we forced to create new policies and operational practices. Third, the new suborganizations became independent from the original construct, but learned to integrate themselves back into the organization as a whole. These analytic mechanisms allowed the organization as a whole to disperse for operational needs yet remain intact for overall mission execution and success.
These occurrences were complex in theory, but most definitely simplified things over time. The organization as a whole was not sure how these changes would result, but we learned that even small changes could yield large yet positive results. We can take these examples and further improve our organization by learning from past changes (what worked and what didn't work) and implementing even more changes should problems arise or current practices not be working.
References
Obolensky, N. (2011). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty.
Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.
Identify 2 examples where “small changes yield large results” in your organization. What are the implications of complexity theory for you and your organization and how can you use this to drive improvements.
Complexity science and butterfly effect are two concepts that we are relatively familiar with as scholars, but now have the opportunity to reflect on in terms of leadership. We commonly see both concepts as they relate to science, mathematics, and even popular culture (the movie "The Butterfly Effect"). Through this module, we can now see how these two concepts can be applied to and used to our advantage in leadership.
The easiest way to exemplify and reflect on both complexity science and butterfly effect for me would be by relating them to my own job as an air traffic controller. If two aircraft start at the same place and time and on parallel courses, little to no change will occur in their relativity to each other. However, if I give either aircraft a one degree change in heading, they will eventually end up in very different geographical locations. This is my own personal analogy for the butterfly effect and one that I would assume will make sense to a wide range of individuals trying to conceptualize what butterfly effect is.
To further the affects of butterfly effect, we look at complexity science and the systems that could additionally alter that one degree difference in aircraft vector. Wind, atmospherics, and fuel consumption are all complex systems that can have a profound affect on the two aircraft as they diverge away from each other during the course (pun intended) of time and distance. Butterfly effect and complexity science become simplified and yet still complicated as we look at this scenario all-inclusively.
In identifying two examples where "small changes yield large results", the first example of this in my organization comes in our hiring practices. While most organizations (including my own at one time) hired based on qualifications and experience. The most recent approach is a small change that has yielded large and positive results across the board. Instead of solely focusing on qualifications and experience, management decided to focus more on a potential hire's ability to work with others and within a team environment. This small change has mitigated co-worker and management conflicts and enabled the team to work more cohesively.
Secondly, a small change that yielded a large result came a few years ago. The organization decided to divide two larger suborganizations from within into four suborganizations. This allowed for a unique opportunity for those that had specialties within the two original suborganizations to focus on their own specialties and perform their functions more exclusively. Obolensky (2011) highlights the work of Collins in relation to catalytic mechanisms. Three specific mechanisms took place after the new hierarchical concept took place.
First, positions that were once needed in the original organizational construct were eliminated or reallocated to their respective suborganizations. Second, the new suborganizations we forced to create new policies and operational practices. Third, the new suborganizations became independent from the original construct, but learned to integrate themselves back into the organization as a whole. These analytic mechanisms allowed the organization as a whole to disperse for operational needs yet remain intact for overall mission execution and success.
These occurrences were complex in theory, but most definitely simplified things over time. The organization as a whole was not sure how these changes would result, but we learned that even small changes could yield large yet positive results. We can take these examples and further improve our organization by learning from past changes (what worked and what didn't work) and implementing even more changes should problems arise or current practices not be working.
References
Obolensky, N. (2011). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty.
Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.
Comments
Post a Comment