Complexity Leadership Theory - Literature review Example

Complexity Leadership Theory Your name University name PART I. Nature of management work The changing trend in the economy has led to a different paradigm of leadership that embrace learning, innovation and adaptability. In an organisation structured in accordance with the complexity model, managers perform three main leadership functions referred to as administrative, adaptive, and enabling. Under the administrative function, the managers have the roles of planning and organizing by formulating short term objectives, developing budgets, translating long-term plans into short term operational goals; coordinating through communication with others in order to share information, maintain workforce relationship; as well as resource allocation (Yukl, 2010). In the adaptive leadership function, the managerial roles in the organization include creative, adaptive and learning activities which enable the organization to adjust to tension. These activities occur among the interactive agents of the complex adaptive systems such as work groups of line workers or in the boardroom. The managers have also been committed in managing the entanglement between administrative and adaptive leadership by creating appropriate organizational conditions (Uhl-Brien, Marion & McKelvery, 2007). This enhances effective leadership in places where adaptability and innovation is required, and facilitating creativity and the flow of knowledge from adaptive structures into administrative structures. Delegation and Empowerment Organizational behaviour should be influenced in the new knowledge era, rather than controlling it (Uhl-Brien, Marion & McKelvery, 2007). The new way of doing things involve the building of trust, value and respect to the followers in in creating opportunities instead of issuing commands. Both authority and responsibility are necessary for a successful delegation. Their proper combinations constitute to empowerment (Berryman-Fink & Fink, 1996). In our organization, a supervisor identifies a problem, choses one option from the alternative solutions and reports it to the followers as the first step towards its implementation. The follower’s response is then taken into consideration in order to recognize the possibility of some resistance among those who will execute the duties. Once the supervisors have presented their decisions as ideas, they estiablish the success criteria in which they will check for success or failure. In doing so, they close the expectation gap that may exist between them and the delegates. They carry out a reality check as a follow up as to whether the group or individual will be able to deliver the expected. Finally, the progress of the whole process is measured on a regular basis to ensure there is sense in relation to the deliverables. For effective delegation, the managers in the organization shares power with the employees so as to enhance their feelings of personal effctiveness (Yukl, 2010). Employee empowerment in the organization has actually increased knowledge sharing within the organization and consequently improved the organizational perfomance. Power and Influence In this new knowledge era, our organization uses a power-influence approach as part of the administrative leadership function to make decisions and influence organizational change. However, we exercise our authority by considering the organization’s need for learning, creativity, and adaptability. Dubrin (2011) argues that internal dissemination of innovation in organizations tend to be obstructed by the formal structures that exist within these organizations. It is therefore, through power, that we can be able to facilitate share and orchestrate the innovative ideas and their outcomes throughout the organization. Dougherty & Hardy (1996) suggests that an innovation approach with a power basis help in generating force, energy for the continuous development and on-going functioning of the organization. With the use of this power, the leaders are able to influence their followers to commit themselves to the achievement of organizational objectives within the framework of complex adaptive structures. Through power and influence, there is an emphasis on using the right criteria in linking right people into various job tasks as well as allowing resources to flow into the right places (Yukl, 2010).. Leaders are thus, able to exercise profitable efficiency in the unpredictable environment through indirect mechanisms and interaction in attempts to influence conditions that require creativity. Implementing Change Organizations in the knowledge based economy constantly seek to implement changes for organizational developments. As one of such organizations, we focus on improving the organization’s ability to solve problems by changing the human and social aspects in a process referred to as organization development. Through adaptive leadership, we use knowledge and techniques derived from behavioural sciences to create a learning environment built upon trust, knowledge and information sharing and employee empowerment (Uhl-Brien, Marion & McKelvery, 2007). Our leadership approach emphasizes on innovations and it is therefore through leadership for change that we can be able to be successful innovators. According to (Cummings& Worley, 2008), this kind of leadership ensures effective implementation of change by demonstrating the importance of innovation and ensuring the organization invests both its resources and time in innovation issues. Our leadership style is particularly suited to bring change by creating a compelling vision and environment that supports, experimentation, exploration, sharing of ideas and risk taking. Successful change can only occur if the employees are willing to commit their time and energy in order to meet the new goals, as well as endure hardship and possible stress (Boone, & Kurtz, 2011). The organization continuously communicates its vision that embodies openness and flexibility to new ideas, styles, and methods that set a stage for the change as well as helping the employees to cope with tension and chaos associated with change. Ensuring Ethical Behaviour Leadership in organisation structured in accordance with the complexity model should focus on the utilization of the various functions of autocatalytic and emergence interactions. According to Marion & Uhl-Bien (2001), these autocatalytic interactions consist of the dynamic in which individuals interact with one another within the organization. For effectiveness in the organization, we have ensured the maintenance of an ethical culture and established ethical protocols that serve as a chief source of information to all stakeholders. Pride, Hughes & Kapoor (2011) notes that ethical behaviour is important in business conduct. We have created customer loyalty by developing standards of ethical behaviour based on our system of value which help deal with ethical issues in the organization. By considering the factors that affect ethical behaviour in organizations that include individual, social and opportunity factors, we have committed our efforts to fairness and considered the welfare of our customers as well as those of employees in order to communicate honestly and avoid conflicts of interests. In addition, our organization has provided the code of ethics that consists of “written guides to acceptable and ethical behaviour as defined by an organization” (Boone, & Kurtz, 2011. p. 66). PART II Complexity Leadership Theory (CLT) This refers to a framework developed to study the emergent leadership dynamics in relation to bureaucratic paradigms. It provides a new understanding in the more oriented knowledge economy based in complexity science (Uhl-Brien, Marion & McKelvery, 2007). The theory identifies three types of leadership functions which include administrative, adaptive, and enabling, and further proposes how they differ from one another depending on where they occur within the larger organizational hierarchy. Strengths of CLT The theory recognizes the complexity of leadership that it can not only be described as an act of an individual, but rather, as a complex interplay of numerous interacting forces. The theory recognizes the existence of complex adaptive systems (CAS) that cannot be separated from bureaucratic functions throughout the organization. Proper functioning of the CAS provides the organization with an adaptive capability while bureaucracy gives the organization an orienting and coordinating structure. The third leadership function under CLT, enabling function, ensures effective management of the entanglement between the adaptive and administrative structures and functions for increased flexibility and overall effectiveness of the organization (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2007). Unlike other leadership models that focus on physical production economy (i.e. only bureaucracy), CLT focuses on the interacting units that exist in the organization and are endowed to evolve with time and thus extends beyond the bureaucracy premises (Coveney, 2003). In this manner, (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Schneider & Somers, 2006) argue that CLT addresses the shortcomings that arise under other leadership styles in the fast-paced, volatile context of the Knowledge Era. It therefore looks at leadership as an interactive dynamic and not just as a position or authority. Complexity leadership theory is a modern approach used to solve organizational problems unlike other traditional leadership approaches (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Schneider & Somers, 2006). The theory encourages creativity and innovativeness among the employee in their undertakings to improve organizational performance. Indeed, these leaders solve problems that relate to cultural diversity in organizations more effectively. Complexity leadership theory tries to simplify the complex organizational systems by reducing the distance between the leaders and the followers though the creation of informal structures of operating activities between them (Uhl-Brien, Marion & McKelvery (2007). The leaders interact with their followers more freely and thus reducing the barriers that may exist in their interaction (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2002). Weaknesses of CLT Complexity leadership theory focuses on leadership in the contexts of dynamically changing informal systems as a way of achieving organizational objectives and goals. Early researchers such as Selznick (1957) and Lewin (1952) regard these informal dynamics as problematic in achieving organizational goals although vaguely supported. Nevertheless, Yammarino & Dansereau (2006) propose and support the idea that the informal systems may conflict with formal systems when it comes to management of resources. They say that informal systems and processes may cause failure in organizational systems that are formal and thus lack legitimacy. For instance, allowing employees to bring innovation by carrying out duties in their own ways may lead to laissez-faire form of management system in the organization creating problems in the management of the resources. Complexity leadership theory lacks practicability in organizational reality. Yammarino & Dansereau (2006) argues that this theory provides an ideal framework for organizational performance but cannot be practically utilized in all situations. They further suppose that the theory does not provide satisfactory guidelines in solving organizational issues. When compared to other leadership theories, complexity leadership cannot be fully depended upon in solving organizational problems. References Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organisations (7th ed). New Jersey, Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice-Hall Inc. Uhl-Brien, M. Marion, R. & McKelvery, B. (2007). Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting Leadership from the Industrial Age to the Knowledge Era. The Leadership Quarterly 18(4) 298-318 Berryman-Fink, C. & Fink, C. (1996). The Manager's Desk Reference. New York: AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. Dubrin, A. (2011). Essentials of Management. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Cummings, T. & Worley, C. (2008). Organization development & change (9th ed). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Daft, R. (2007). Organization Theory and Design (9th ed). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Pride, W. Hughes, R & Kapoor, J. (2011). Business (11th ed). ). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Boone, L & Kurtz, D. (2011). Contemporary Marketing (15th ed). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Coveney, P. (2003). Self-organization and Complexity: A new age for theory, computation and experiment, Paper presented at the Nobel symposium on self-organization. Stockholm: Karolinska Institute. Yammarino, F. & Dansereau, F. (2006). Multi-level Issues in Social Systems. New York: Emerald Group Publishing Marion, R. & Uhl-Bien, M. (2002). Complexity theory and Al-Qaeda: Examining complex leadership, Emergence. A Journal of Complexity Issues in Organizations and Management 5, 56–78. Schneider, M. & Somers, M. (2006). Organizations as complex adaptive systems: Implications of complexity theory for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly 17 (4), 351-365. Marion, R. & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations, The Leadership Quarterly 389-418. Marion, R. & Uhl-Bien, M. (2007). Complexity and strategic leadership. In: R. Hooijberg, J. Hunt, J. Antonakis, K. Boal, & N. Lane, Eds. Being there even when you are not: Leading through structures, systems, and processes. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Dougherty, D. & Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained product innovation in large, mature organizations: Overcoming innovation-to-organization problems, Academy of Management Journal 39, 1120-1153. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration. New York: Harper and Row. Lewin, A. (1952). Group decision and social change. In: G. E. Swanson, T. M. Newcomb and E.L. Hartley, Eds. Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt, 459–473. Read More