Complexity Leadership Theory
Tasked with the stewardship of public goods or quasi-public goods, nonprofit organizations have a variety of stakeholders to please. Stakeholders have different ideas about the real problem and thus often have different solutions. Achieving goals often generates new issues, and the problems nonprofits take on require working across sectoral boundaries and across disciplines. Many nonprofits are navigating through their complex environments by learning to partner with others, building alliances, and joining coalitions or collaborations to maintain or increase effectiveness (Boris & Maronick, 2012), increasing the complexity of their environments.
Models of leadership in emergent, adaptive organizational systems based on complexity science have been developed and tested using computer simulations (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2002) or a case study for one organization using qualitative research (Plowman, Solansky, Beck, Baker, Kulkarni, & Travis, 2007).
“Complexity theory” is not a unified body of theory (Thrift, 1999). It is a range of scientific theories which stress non-linearity, unpredictability and self-organization in the way systems work—always-changing, unstable and dynamic. In complexity, randomness is balanced with determinism; self-regulation in complex living systems continually adjusts probabilities of where the system should move, what actions members should take, and, as a result, how deeply to explore particular pathways within networks (Mitchell, 2009). When strategizing, we are not limited to one direction; as Schwartz (1991) indicates; the fringe can be an important signal of the future, but driving forces are still critical. Different disciplines may approach complexity in different ways, but the properties commonly agreed upon include adaptiveness, interdependence, overlap, and coevolution (Foster, 2005).
Models of leadership in emergent, adaptive organizational systems based on complexity science have been developed and tested using computer simulations (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2002) or a case study for one organization using qualitative research (Plowman, Solansky, Beck, Baker, Kulkarni, & Travis, 2007). Lichtenstein, Uhl-Bien, Marion, Seers, Orton, and Schreiber (2006) present a theoretical explanation of complexity leadership theory (CLT) as a means of analyzing episodes of leadership, which they define as interactions between actors. Other studies related to leadership in complex adaptive systems includes the case study of Plowman, Baker, Beck, Kulkarni, Solansky, & Travis (2007) which used a qualitative approach to observe the complex interactions and behaviors that characterize leadership in CLT. The studies focused on reviewing the decision-making processes at a local organization during a period of dramatic change. Findings from these studies suggest that leadership is one of several factors contributing to the radical and unintended organizational transformation of the organization “from a dying church with nothing unique about it to one that people throughout the city came to recognize for its ministry with the city’s homeless” (Plowman, Solansky, Beck, Baker, Kulkarni, & Travis, 2007, p. 344). Leaders applying complexity are characterized by their ability to 1) disrupt existing patterns, 2) encourage novelty, and 3) use sensemaking (Plowman, Solansky, Beck, Baker, Kulkarni, & Travis, 2007). Leaders in the Plowman, et al. (2007) studies disrupted existing patterns in organizational behavior by accepting and managing conflicts rather than minimizing conflict and uncertainty (Plowman, Solansky, Beck, Baker, Kulkarni, & Travis, 2007), the traditional leadership approach. Leaders also disrupted existing patterns by acknowledging and embracing uncertainty, refusing to back away from uncomfortable truths, talking openly about the most serious issues, and challenging institutional taboos. This positive disruption behavior encourages open thinking and provides legitimacy for new ideas and patterns to emerge. Encouraging novelty includes looking for innovation by generating and reinforcing simple rules that focus on principles and generating flexibility in how to go about carrying out the principles. Facilitating interactions increased connections between people and created a richer and more unpredictable dialogue within the organization, contrasting with the traditional leadership model of command-and-control and strict hierarchical reporting. Finally, leaders acted as sensemakers for the organization by interpreting rather than creating change (Plowman, Solansky, Beck, Baker, Kulkarni, & Travis, 2007). The two case studies led by Plowman suggest that in any organization, leaders should work to give meaning to what is happening, but especially in complex situations and systems. Leaders direct attention to what is important and what things mean. They also make sense of emergent events through reframing, either in the principles of the organization, or in the context of the hoped-for changes and how important they are. Leaders label behaviors in ways that provide coherence and shared understanding by carefully using language to articulate meanings. The overall conclusion of the Plowman et al. (2007) studies is that the leaders of the organization play a key role in radical transformation of the organization, not by specifying it or directing it, but by creating the conditions that allow for the emergence of such change.
Marion and Uhl-Bien (2002), who found that leaders are only one element of an interactive network. Leaders who recognize and accept complexity can use networks to enable useful behaviors. They are transformational within organizations in that they create conditions necessary for innovation, not necessarily creating the innovations themselves; they create and cultivate partnerships; they catalyze more than they control.
Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey (2007) respond by developing a model of leadership grounded in complexity theories. Complexity, they argue, describes the interdependent interactions of agents within complex adaptive systems, agents with the systems, and systems with systems. The behaviors of agents are always understood within the context of complex adaptive systems. This behavior requires new models of leadership, because problem solving in complex systems is performed by social networks rather than by groups coordinated in hierarchies. Effective leadership in these conditions occurs through indirect mechanisms and interaction. Complexity mechanisms can be described as the dynamic behaviors that occur within a complex adaptive system. They are not so much about structure as about the agency by which an effect is produced. Examination of mechanisms and contexts will help us to understand how and under what conditions certain outcomes occur. Complexity Leadership Theory, derived from this perception of complexity, sets up organizations to enable adaptive responses to challenges through network-based problem solving.
Hazy and Uhl-Bien (2012) explain a model of the leadership meta-capability, which they call the leadership and capabilities model (LCM). Depending on context, the complex systems leadership operation acts on the system to perform three functions. The convergent operation adjusts the properties of the system to make them more predictable. Rules are changed (disruption) to dampen deviations by increasing individual productivity and leveraging cooperative activities with technology and other assets. The generative operation responds to changing constraints in the environment and promotes exploration, collaboration, creativity and innovation in system properties. If changing constraints on the system suggests that a qualitative change in coarse-grained properties is needed, fine-grained rules of interaction are changed to promote experimentation. The unifying operation uses communication and symbolic activities, to more clearly specify acceptable and expected rules for system properties by promoting locally stable collective identities and systems of ethics.
It is not useful in all situations; where predictability and straightforward goals and outcomes are needed, utilizing complexity leadership is likely to prove confusing and time-consuming (Patton, 2011). The theory is designed to guide leadership in navigating organizations—and their networks—through adaptation and co-evolution, and managing in environments with much overlap and interdependence. It is useful in initiatives that require frequent reassessment.
References:
Boris, E. T.. & Maronick, M. (2012). Civic Participation and Advocacy. In Salamon, L. S. (Ed.). The State of Nonprofit America. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
Hazy, J. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Changing the Rules: The implications of complexity science for leadership research and practice. In David Day (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University press.
Lichtenstein, B. B., Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Orton, J. D., & Schreiber, C. (2006). Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 8(4), 2-12.
Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2002). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 389-418.
Plowman, D. A., Solansky, S. T., Beck, T. E., Baker, L, Kulkarni, M, Travis, D.V. (2007). The role of leadership in emergent, self-organization. The Leadership Quarterly 18, 341–35.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The leadership quarterly, 18(4), 298-318.
For more information:
Byrne, D. (1998). Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
Capra, F. (1997) The web of life: A new synthesis of mind and matter. London: Flamingo.
Hazy, J. K. & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Changing the Rules: The implications of complexity science for leadership research and practice. David Day (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University press.
Lichtenstein, B. B., Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Orton, J. D., & Schreiber, C. (2006). Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 8(4), 2-12.
Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2002). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 389-418.
Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A Guided Tour. New York: Oxford University Press.
Plowman, D. A., Solansky, S. T., Beck, T. E., Baker, L, Kulkarni, M, Travis, D.V. (2007). The role of leadership in emergent, self-organization. The Leadership Quarterly 18, 341–35.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The leadership quarterly, 18(4), 298-318.