Connecting the dots...

The last several posts have included topics on complex adaptive systems ("The myth of the ant-queen"), network science ("Six degree of Kevin Bacon"), small world networks ("It's a small world after all..."), self-managed teams ("A flock of starlings"), teal organizations ("Today's color is teal...").  I wanted to take a brief moment and try to connect all of the dots here, as I was being very intentional in how I sequenced this series of posts.  

It's seems a little strange (at least it did to me) that a blog on leadership would focus on self-managed teams, which sound a lot like leaderless teams.  I promise that there has been a method to my madness!  I still feel that leadership (good leadership anyway, because I do think there is such a thing as bad leadership) is critically important to the success of any organization (see my last post, "Any old map will do...").  My two main points are (1) we live in a complex world (it's a VUCAT world) and (2) our complex world requires a different type of leadership.

I recently started reading a book (it's an older one, but I still find it relevant) by the British organizational theorist Ralph Stacey entitled Managing the Unknowable: Strategic Boundaries Between Order and Chaos in Organizations.  Stacey was one of the first to apply the disciplines of chaos theory and complexity science to organizations and argued that organizations are complex adaptive systems.  Recall that complex adaptive systems consist of (1) systems made up of many individual parts or agents that (2) interact with each other and follow simple rules that lead to the emergence ("the whole becomes greater than the sum of the individual parts") of complex behaviors that occurs (3) in the absence of any centralized leader who is coordinating the interactions of the individual parts or agents.  Stacey further argued that because organizations are complex adaptive systems, leaders could rarely forecast or predict all of the consequences of their actions (i.e. their strategy and tactics).  As such, management is not always the rational, analytic, and scientific decision-making process as outlined by individuals like Frederick Winslow Taylor (see The Principles of Scientific Management).  Instead, leaders within complex adaptive systems should adopt and modify their leadership and management (i.e. decision-making and level of control) to the particular nuances and context of the situation at hand.

Stacey created a diagram of contingency leadership that is now called the "Stacey Matrix" (apparently he regretted creating it).  It's a classic 2x2 matrix, with the "degree of certainty" on the horizontal axis and "level of agreement" on the vertical axis:

Degree of Certainty

Problems, issues, or decisions are close to certainty when a strong cause-and-effect relationship can be established or if a similar problem or issue has been addressed in the past.  In other words, leaders can easily extrapolate from their past experience to predict the outcomes of an action or decision with a high level of confidence.  Conversely, when problems, issues, or decisions are new and unique, extrapolating from past experience may not be possible, hence the proper course of action is far from certain.  

Level of Agreement

If the group or team has come to a consensus about a problem, issue, or decision, then the group is close to agreement.  Conversely, when consensus cannot be achieved, the group is far from agreement.

The figure above is slightly different than the typical 2x2 matrix, which forms four distinct quadrants (albeit with some overlap at the margins).  There are still four zones, but they are more dynamic and fluid than the usual four quadrants.  What is valuable with the Stacey Matrix is that it provides a way for leaders to select the appropriate management action in a complex adaptive system, based on the degree of certainty and level of agreement on the problem or issue in question:

Simple problems are those in which there is a high degree issues or problems are usually amenable to Taylor's scientific principles of management.  The goal is to repeat what has worked in the past and monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of the tried-and-true approach. 

Complicated problems can involve those in which there may be a high level of certainty / low level of agreement or low level of certainty / high level of agreement.  The former requires coalition building, negotiation, and compromise in order to reach consensus on how the problem will be solved.  Focusing on a shared mission and vision (remember there is a high level of agreement) will help the team to move to an agreed upon future state, even if the specific path to get there cannot be determined in advance.

Complex problems exist in what is often referred to as the "edge of chaos" (Stacey himself called this area the "zone of complexity").  The traditional leadership and management approaches will not work here.  Complex problems require creativity, innovation, and breaking with the past.  

Chaos (also known as "Anarchy" in some versions of the Stacey Matrix) is characterized by very high levels of disagreement and uncertainty.  Organizations should try to avoid chaos, if at all possible.

The Stacey Matrix is often compared to two other models called the Cynefin Framework (pronounced coon-a-fin) and Keith Grint's Wicked, Tame, Crisis Framework (the one I prefer the most).  Regardless of which framework that is used, all three suggest that the same leadership and management approach can't be used to solve every problem that an organization faces.  Instead, the best approach is to use the best leadership and management approach for the specific problem at hand.  And here is where self-managed teams (and similar concepts that I will cover soon) and "deference to expertise" assume critical importance.