As
we continue to study complexity science as it relates to organizational change,
we have been able to focus in a little on the development and evolution of
leadership structures, particularly as structure relates to strategy. Basically,
the evolution of leadership strategy/approach in general (notice that I am not
saying the leadership strategy/approach for a specific organization) has gone
through three major shifts (Obolensky, 2014). First was a function silo
approach. Visualize an old factory with actual silos spewing out nasty
pollution into the air (we need to fix that, by the way, but this isn’t my
environmental blog here so I’ll save that for another time). Each silo
represents a division of the organization with the head of that division at the
top. For example, you may have R&D, budgeting, marketing, HR, IT, etc. Each
silo has a specific function but they don’t really interact with one other to
reach a common goal. Organizations like that has, for the most part, either
evolved or have ceased to exist. Those that did evolve moved into a
cross-functional matrix. In these organizations (which is most likely how your
organization operates), each division still exists independent of the others
but the main difference is that they don’t operate independently but rather
interdependently. There is transparency and cross talk. Within an organization
like this, you would likely find high performance teams made of members of each
division to ensure that everybody is working together. When I was reading about
these, I started to visualize an old serial battery on a science project. Each
battery was still separate but they were all connected to energize the same
thing (usually me). If there was one break in the chain, the whole thing fell
apart. As the evolution continues, we are not seeing more and more
organizations move toward a complex adaptive system (CAS) in which the
traditional leadership paradigms of hierarchy have evolved to a more fluid
polyarchy-type approach. In an organization like this, though roles can still
be clearly defined, there is much more of a team concept. I kind of think of a
hockey team where everybody has a role to fill but anybody can score once they
have control of the puck. Or, in the case of organizations, think of the
business in my last blog, the Moring Star tomato company. That’s just a blob
organization where everybody manages themselves.
If
the organizations themselves have evolved, so, too, have the strategies that
are used to drive them. Clearly a cross-functional strategy would fail in a CAS
organization because the lines of communication and management structure have
totally changed. There are two glaring reasons that strategy must change as the
organization changes in a complex environment. First, “Complexity theory deals
with systems which show complex structures in time or space, often hiding
simple deterministic rules” (Lissack, 1997, p. 295). In a complex environment,
there are still rules. Those rules just tend to be a little more fluid these
days. As the variables are constantly in motion, so, too, are the effects of
the causes. I previously discussed the buttefly effect but that is one example
of how a tiny variable can completely change an outcome. If that cause and effect
relationship has been identified, strategy must evolve to compensate or
incorporate. Second, “complexity theory research has allowed for new insights
into many phenomena and for the development of a new language. The use of
complexity theory metaphors can change the way managers think about the
problems they face” (p. 295). If the way that we think about (or see) issues within
the organization evolves, so, too must our strategy. This also means that the
way which we receive feedback changes because we will begin to interpret the
same data differently. I could go on and on with the reasons that we have to
ensure that our strategy evolves as the structure of the organization evolves
but I think you get the picture.
For
this blog, I was asked to discuss the changes in strategy for my own
organization. Well, since I work for the U.S. Army, that may be a bad example
as our strategy has really yet to fully evolve into a CAS. In fact, we may
never get there. We don’t really have a valid reason to change and we need
those clear lines of structure on the battlefield. As an alternative, we were
asked to discuss how strategy has evolved with another organization with which
we are familiar. Though it is still a new organization, one with which I am
extremely familiar is my church here in NYC. I have been a part of it since
before it was even officially a registered church and I have been a lay leader
there so have been involved in the strategy department!
When
I first moved to NYC, I lived in a neighborhood in Queens called Long Island
City which is right on the East River directly across from the U.N. It was a
mere one stop away from Grand Central on the 7 train so the population is
primarily made up of mid-level white collar people trying to escape the city
without being too far from the action. One of my old ministers from another church
said that his currently church was sponsoring a mission team here and that it
might be worth checking out. As it turned out, that team happened to be meeting
in the public meeting space of my sister building on Sunday mornings so I went
to check it out. They had only met a few times before I showed up so I think I
was there on the 5th or 6th week on meetings. I believe
that there were 8 of us. I don’t know how much I got roped in right away. It
was just assumed that I was a part of this group and should have
responsibilities. So much for getting to enjoy a year or two of rampant
sinning! (Just kidding! Just kidding!) At that point, we really were too small
to be called an organization but we did seem to grow rapidly into something
that could be. After about a year, we had finally grown in size to about 40
members and we had an official staff. I think that we probably just developed
as a CAS, though, because we all had designated roles and we all reported to
one of three official leaders but there was a significant level of
cross-functionality. As we continued to grow over the next year, I can see that
we may have even taken a step back somewhat to more of a cross functional
matrix with designated “lanes”. However, the strategy was evolving to allow
more flexibility for our pastor which is like the CEO. The associate pastor
that came on board is more like a COO in charge of operations. So where does
this leave us now? It seems odd that we developed as a CAS and then our
strategy evolved to a “lower” state of “organization existence” (those are my
own quotations, by the way, and not a refence). But did it really? I mean when
you only have 8 people, everybody has to do everything so maybe what I am
actually seeing is original development in a cross functional state as that
didn’t happen until after we had already adopted an official charter as a
church registered with the association. The strategy seems to have actually
streamlined, though, as the resources have become available. It seems to be a
lot more organized as communication improves and experience is teaching us the
dos and don’ts. Now that I live in Manhattan, getting to Long Island City is a
bit more of a chore. It isn’t too bad but usually takes about 35 minutes so I
am not as readily available for impromptu meetings so I have seen my role diminish
slightly. That, too, brought on its own changes in strategy for the
organization as my roles had to be passed on to another. So, where do I see
this in 10 years? Interestingly, it the strategy held as it is right now, I can
honestly say that we would be like most of the other churches here in the area.
They grow to about 100 and then they stagnate. I didn’t think about that until
now but that really may be to a rapid evolution from a missionary mindset to an
operational one. Once we grow to a size to where things are streamlined, do we
become comfortable and forget to grow? Now a church is obviously NOT an
organization with a growth mindset but rather one of outreach. More membership
does not equal more area impact. But should our strategy remain as it is, that
is what will happen. We will stay in this cross-matrix state (which is fine)
but I can see the roles morphing again and strategy evolving as well to
encompass that. The bottom line – strategy, regardless of what it is, must change
with the changes of the organization. Views change. Language changes. People
change. What works today in any organization will probably only maintain and
will not allow for (positive growth) change.
Lissack,
M. (1997). "Strategy at the leading edge"—Mind your metaphors:
Lessons from complexity science. Long
Range Planning, 30(2), 294.
Obolensky,
N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership:
embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd
ed.).
Farnham: Gower.
No comments:
Post a Comment