Like clockwork?

I've been learning a lot about complexity science (see "A jumbo jet is complicated, but mayonnaise is complex") and chaos theory (see, "Tame the Chaos?") over the course of the past few months and came across a concept discussed by Brenda Zimmerman in her book, Edgeware: Lessons for Complexity Science for Health (for a shorter summary, see her article "Complexity Science: A Route Through Hard Times and Uncertainty" published several years ago in the Health Forum Journal).  Zimmerman and her colleagues discuss the differences between traditional leadership models, which are largely based on Newtonian physics versus the models that are required for today's world, which are largely based on quantum physics.

Newtonian physics versus quantum physics?  Let me explain.  Classical physics, often called Newtonian physics is based upon Sir Isaac Newton's three universal laws of motion and emphasizes the linear, cause-and-effect nature of the world around us.  To every action is an opposite counteraction.  Output is proportional to input.  The overall system is a sum of its individual component parts.  Under this paradigm, we should be able to both predict and understand exactly what happens in a system by breaking it down into its individual components.  For years, science used this reductionist approach to understand, or at least try to understand, the laws of the universe.  Take, for example, the scientific discipline of medicine.  We should be able to understand how the whole human body functions by understanding how each organ system works.  We should be able to understand how each organ system works by understanding how each organ in that system works.  We can understand how the individual organs function by understanding how the tissues that make up that organ function, and so on down to the individual cells and after that the organelles.  Anyone who has spent time in the hospital can appreciate that it's never this straightforward.  If it were, we would have cured many of the diseases that affect us.

Beginning in the late 1900's, as science was beginning to reveal the secrets of the atom, there was a paradigm shift towards quantum physics.  Rather than the machine-like, clockwork universe of Newton, we started to appreciate the inherent complexity of the world around us.  Rather than thinking in linear terms, we began to think in non-linear terms.  We began to appreciate that the whole is actually greater than the sum of its parts, and that we could never fully understand or appreciate how exactly a system works just by understanding its individual components.  The reductionist approach that led to so many discoveries in the past really doesn't work in this new age of quantum physics, and the world is not as predictable as we were previously led to believe during the age of Newtonian physics.  As an example, just consider how many times the weather forecast is correct.  Even with the sophisticated computer models and simulations that are available today, the 10 day weather forecast is only accurate about half the time!  

Leadership under the classical or Newtonian paradigm is relatively straightforward.  Best practices and so-called standard operating procedures can be universally applied to solve a problem with fairly predictable results.  In contrast, leadership in the quantum world of complexity and chaos requires a different approach.  The solution to a problem is neither obvious nor intuitive.  The tried and true routines do not work here.  According to Brenda Zimmerman and her colleagues (and consistent with other models that I have described previously), there are two different approaches to solving problems, which they call clockware and swarmware.  Clockware describes the core management processes that are rational, planned, standardized, repeatable, controlled, and measurable.  These are the standard operating procedures or best practices that can be used again and again with predictable consequences.  Swarmware describes the management processes that explore new possibilities through experimentation, trials, autonomy, freedom, intuition, and experience.  Here, the solutions are never straightforward and usually have to be just "good enough".  Both approaches are required in the world we live in today.  As Zimmerman writes, "When life is far from certain, lead with clockware and swarmware in tandem."  The best leaders are the ones who know when to apply each approach.