It is interesting to note that in recent years, many social scientists (such as those operating out of the Santa Fe Institute) are studying complex dynamic systems. They have found that traditional hierarchical rule is often incompatible with dynamic and complex systems. Beginning with Ilya Prigogine’s theory of dissipative structures (Prigogine and Stegner, 1984) and leading up to more recent descriptions of complex adaptive systems (e.g., Miller and Page, 2007), there is now ample evidence that most systems in nature are not hierarchical. Just as a flock of birds does not have a formal lead bird, so large, complex organizations (especially those that are international in scope and diverse in product or service offerings) are not amendable to traditional modes of authority and control.
These organizations actually operate like the flock of birds in what is called a “self-organizing” manner. When flocking and self-organizing occurs, leadership (and control) is quite fluid. Furthermore, Trust is no longer dependent on a stable and strong center of control. We have traditionally used the term “lasses-faire” when labeling social systems that are populated by people with a low need for control. We assume that this lasses-faire perspective and practice is often accompanied by suspicion regarding formal authority. However, this might not always be the case. We can now label these social systems as “dynamically self-organizing.” A more “agile” form of leadership is desired with control shifting depending on the issue being addressed and the type of expertise held by members of the system. However, it should be noted that even with this new label, self-organizing, low-control systems are likely to produce high levels of frustration among those members with a strong need for proactive control. There is little appreciation on the part of these “control freaks” for leadership provided by their more collaborative colleagues.
If we don’t fully buy the self-organization premise, then we can expand our identification of leadership styles by offering a Goldilocks analysis. Relationships and organizations can be quite “hot.” One person is in charge and everyone else plays a secondary role. I witnessed a “hot” relationship several days ago at a restaurant. At a nearby table, there was one man who was doing all of the talking from more than a half hour. The other three occupants of chairs at his table were there to listen and occasionally nod their head in agreement with his highly opinionated and very loud pronouncements.
Similarly, I consulted with the leader of a health care organization several years ago in which a major reorganization was being planned. When asked to diagram the current structure, a small team of physicians and administrators drew a simple diagram: one big circle with all lines leading to a second even larger circle (which was the current leader). There was NO organizational “design.” There was only command and control at the top of the organization. Trust was nowhere to be found in this health care organization. There was considerable pessimism among those at the table. Their negative attitudes were justifiable. The reorganization never got off the ground.
By contrast, I witnessed the interaction (or lack of interaction) between two young people at a San Francisco restaurant. They were sitting at a coveted table overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Each of them was on their cell phones and never interacted with one another—despite the “romantic” setting in which they were located. There wasn’t any “there, there” and neither of these two people was influencing the other person. Total independence and total lack of control. They were exhibiting a very “cold” relationship. Was any “caring”—let alone any Trust—to be found among these two young people. Similarly, I consulted with a struggling urban university. Virtually all of the faculty members lived far away from this rather destitute setting. Faculty meetings were rare. Formal leadership at the university was ridiculed. Students found no reason to “hang out” at the university’s student union. It was a “cold” environment in which to work. I could find no Trust in the halls of this university. I found myself (like the faculty members) looking forward to going home.
Download Article 1K Club
