A633.5.4.RB_BorutyAlan_Circle of Leadership

Circle of Leadership

Obolensky (2014) does not include enough information to draw any conclusion about the vicious circle for leaders.  I believe that the illustration represents a possible situation that could happen in any organization, but if it did the organization is most likely having major problems in leadership and followership.  Obolensky (2014) spent the entire chapter discussing followership development in detail to include component interactions, communication, and he need to embed the 4 + 4 principles into followership development.  And then, in the last five or six lines of the chapter and one simple illustration he seemingly contradicts everything else in the chapter.  Based on the discussion of follower development, nothing about the vicious circle makes sense.  The illustration does depict a vicious circle for leaders, but it should not happen if a functional process is in place in the organization.  Additional information would have helped me understand what actually generates a vicious circle.  The below items are a few of the things that would have let me determine what causes the vicious circle and how to prevent it.

No assumptions provided to interpret the illustration

The illustration represents skill/will in isolation from the 4+4 principles

The leader and the follower aren’t communicating, they are reacting

It implies that if the leader changes as a result of follower behavior a vicious circle is always the result when, in fact, it is just as easy to illustrate a desired result.  For example, if a Level 4 follower began demonstrating Level 5 maturity, the leader’s response in the same circle would drive improving behaviors.  The leader would soon move the follower to Level 5.     

    

If this vicious circle did happen it could indicate a breakdown in the relationship between leadership and followership. “The two combine into a dynamic which can get better results in a more sustained way than the typical oligarchic approach” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 163).  The result would be a break in the dynamic relationship allowing old oligarchic behavior into the organization.  Oligarchic and polyarchic behaviors would clash.  The organization would at minimum would experience operational disruptions. 

If I were able to create a new circle, it would illustrate the entire followership development process.  The Input/Output Tables below describe the data necessary for Followership Development.

I did not create tables for input and outputs for the organization.  The leadership/followership line to the organization from leader and follower outputs are meant to represent the combined dynamic to the organization.  The only other connection is 2-way communication from the leader.

Follower Outputs:

Skill/Will to the leader Level 5 Followership to the leader 2-way communication to the leader the Followership Maturity to leader Followership/Leadership to organization

Follower Inputs:

Leadership Behavior 4 + 4 Principles from the leader Motivation from Leader

Leader inputs:

Skill/Will from follower 2-way communication from follower and organization Level 5 Followership from follower Followership Maturity from follower

Leader Outputs:

Leadership Behavior to Follower 4 + 4 Principles to Follower Motivation to Follower Leadership/Followership to organization

The process is simple enough.  Determining the cause of skill/will issues get complicated because any number of things could cause the same problem.  Unclear objectives, poorly stated purpose, and undefined boundaries are common barriers to motivation (Obolensky, 2014). The 4 + 4 principles are important to follower skill/will development and Level 5 followership advancement.  But, Level 5 Followership is almost entirely based on leadership behavior changes that maneuver individuals through the five levels.  The optimum followership level is Level 5 and high skill/high will.  This is also be called followership maturity. 

It may sound mechanical but when the process is right and leaders get to know the followers it becomes intuitive for the leader determine needs and make changes to help the followers. While it is not overly complicated, it takes time and simply cannot be rushed. 

This process is the preferred circle between leader and follower.  The process is universal in application. It will provide consistent results regardless of the follower’s primary skill set.  Developing followership skills to include willingness to take the lead are critical for polyarchy to thrive.

~Pete

Reference:

Obolensky, N.,(2014).Complex adaptive leadership :Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed).  Surrey, England. Gowan Publishing Limited.

A633.5.3.RB_BorutyAlan_Reflections on Chaos

Reflections on Chaos

I will admit, I have struggled more with the concepts in this course than any other I have taken in this program…well… perhaps with the exception of Storytelling.  What is worse is that I truly believe the subject material in this course is also the most important and relevant to the leadership environment that I have studied to date.  Difficulty understanding a subject that I know is critical to the vast majority of organizations operating today, has kept me extremely frustrated.  Of course, the subjects deal with chaos and complexity in leadership and the tools needed to lead in the contexts of chaos and complexity.  I had to ask myself why has it been so difficult to grasp?  It was a bit too abstract.  My experience lies completely in the strict hierarchical structure of the military…blah, blah, blah.  The fact is it contradicts everything I understood about leadership.  I read the material with a closed mind and then could not make the concepts work in my mind.  Sometimes intelligent people are not very smart.

I have read the material again, some sections many times.  This helped me to understand how the concepts Obolensky (2014) describes should be applied within the context from a literal and very mechanical view point.  Gary Hamel’s description and review of the Morning Star Company in his article First, Let’s Fire All the Managers and my research on the Valve Corporation convinced me that polyarchy and Complex Adaptive Leadership work very well and can be effective in any organization.  Morning Star and Valve are two very different companies, (tomato processing and video game development respectively), yet they employed nearly identical structure, leadership approach, and operational philosophy.  It was at this point, that my mind opened and I realized not only is this a viable option, it is a superior option.  When I watched Nick Obolensky’s video ‘Who Needs Leaders?,’ I saw clearly how chaos gives way to order.  I watched it several times.  It was a visual proof of concept for me.  By applying eight relatively simple principles and without any further direction, a group of people were able to resolve a complex problem in under a minute without saying a word to each other.  The video took the doubt, anxiety, and mystery out of chaos and complexity for me.  The rapid changes in technologies that began in the early 1990s and continues still, ultimately changed the concepts in which we base our leadership assumptions (Obolensky, 2014). 

Prior to the technology explosion, most organizations primarily operated within the simple and complicated contexts which are deterministic, causal, and predictable.  Afterwards, many companies had to resolve issues in the complex and chaotic contexts.  These contexts are non-deterministic, have cause and effect combined, and are seemingly unpredictable.  Obolensky (2014) suggests that polyarchy and Complex Adaptive Leadership can be used effectively in complex and chaotic environments and the time to transition is now.  I agree that a flat structure where people can be self-directed and the expertise and decision making can be placed closest to where issues often arise, will allow the organization to thrive.  The rapid changes are still happening and leadership context is still trending toward the complex, so yes the time to evolve is now. 

Today, we know more about what motivates people to their best performance, and, although we still have a way to go, we understand complexity and chaos in the leadership realm better than we ever have.  We also know enough about hierarchical structures to know that they are not well suited for self-directed people/organizations nor are they well suited to operate in the complex or chaotic contexts for extended periods.

Obolensky’s chaos game changed my attitude about chaos in a positive way.  I do not automatically have to think hopeless tragedy.  Using the correct approach, chaotic behavior is a problem that can be  solved.  It "actually has a simple deterministic explanation" (Obolensky, 2014, p. 68). The exercise also provided me eye witness proof that out of chaos emerges order.  The implication of the game on strategy is “under a polyarchic assumption, strategy is defined by the dynamic of the relationships within which the organization exists" (Obolensky, 2014, p. 103).  The game with its boundaries in place seems to illustrate this point.  However, CAS organizations extend the boundary to include external relationships.  Finally, less traditional leadership is needed when things are complex.  Instead utilize the 8 key principles to enable followers to become self-directed and the leader to practice wu-wei.

~Pete

References:

Hamel, G. (2011). First, Let's Fire all the Managers (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 48-60.

Internet. (2017, November 12). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved: November 15, 2017, from:  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet&oldid=809902517

Obolensky, N.,(2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty, (2nd ed). Farnham Surrey, England. Gowan PublishingLimited.

Obolensky, N. (2008). Who needs leaders? Nick Obolensky,(April 12, 2008). Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=41QKeKQ2O3E

Valve Corporation (2012). Handbook for new employees. Accessed November 4, 2017. Retrieved from: http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/Valve_NewEmployeeHandbook.pdf

A633.4.3.RB_BorutyAlan_Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Changing Dynamics of Leadership

I truly believe the shift in leadership is caused by the technological environment leaders are competing in today.  Over the last few decades, advancements in the areas of military, communication, and transportation technologies occurred at a pace never seen before.  Tomes of information became available to everyone which almost instantly increased knowledge and human awareness at a rate that when graphed, it is represented by a near vertical line (Obolensky, 2014).  These advancements connected people, places, and things that had been isolated and static.  Suddenly competition on a global level was real and it was dynamic.  These changes took place so quickly, many of the senior leaders simply could not keep up.  At the same time, the environment in which senior leaders operated made the art of leadership harder to practice than before.  To remain viable major changes are needed at a time Obolensky (2014) tells us that “leaders are more stressed, challenged, and confused today more than ever before” (p. 37).

Leaders that once understood and thrived in their business markets now found them unpredictable and uncertain.  According to Obolensky (2014), “we have changed the context of leadership faster than we have changed our assumptions about what leadership actually is” (p. 20).  This uncertain and unpredictable context is driving a shift in leadership style from one of top-down command and control to one Obolensky named Complex Adaptive Leadership (CAL).  In this environment leaders take a hands off, go with the flow approach acknowledging that the people closest to the work are better suited to making smart decisions.  The leader shares information openly and with the exception of providing a few simple rules, people manage themselves.  The leadership role is more involved with stakeholder expectations than running the company.  Teams form and dissolve as necessary.  Teams hold members personally responsible for their work and poor performance is not tolerated (Obolensky, 2014).  This leadership role is so counterintuitive to me, I am not sure that I could adapt.

I absolutely believe the rapid changes in technology changed some markets drastically.  The uncertain and unpredictable context created by these changes rendered the traditional leadership style ineffective and forced leaders to find new approaches.  But, not all markets or industries were affected the same.  The technology markets and other markets sensitive to the constantly changing technology industry were affected the most.  The information explosion had an effect on everyone.  Those companies that held the competitive advantage by getting decision making information before the competition suddenly operated in an industry where everyone had the same information at the same time.  This effected strategy within those industries, but did not drive a shift in leadership style.  I still consider my organization to be the Air Force.  Many things changed in the Air Force, but leadership style and organizational structure remained strictly hierarchical.

I was in the Air Force when the changes started effecting the wing-level organizations.  There were certain military functions that were involved from the beginning and they were prepared.  But, the rest of us experienced the confusion and chaos of a surprise that marked a significant and permanent change in the way we would conduct day to day business.  Equipment started showing up that we could not identify one day and we were expected to be using it the next day.  Incorporating the new technology was a slow process.  Some of us were a little resistant and a little slower to come around.  Our senior leaders had one-on-one trainers to make the transition quicker and easier.  I cannot say from my vantage point that what the business community experienced was indicative of what the Air Force experienced.  Some areas in the Air Force were caught unaware, but in general technology advancements were not uncommon in the Air Force. 

One reason the Air Force was not caught unaware or left behind is the military departments were the genesis for enhancements in technology (Obolensky, 2014).  The Air Force has seen improvements in technology on a regular basis since its inception in 1947.  Change is discussed, planned, and scheduled.  When the time to implement the newest improvement comes up, teams are trained to operate, troubleshoot, and maintain the new systems.  They are shown what to expect and how to react.  Another reason is that the Air Force specifically recruits young men and women that have high aptitude scores in the technology fields and places them in career fields that best match their aptitude.  Then the Air Force provides specific and detailed training to those people on a continuing basis.  Based on these reasons, I would argue that the military and its members are among the most adaptive groups of people that exist.  However, adaptive also applies to organizations, in that category the military ranks last.  According to Obolensky (2014) adaptive “suggests something which can make itself more suitable to a changing environment.  It assumes a process which can measure and use feedback to change and be fit for the environment which is changing around it” (p. xix).  By this definition, complex adaptation is a naturally occurring evolution allowing real time adjustments to the unpredictable environment changing around it.  Military organizations do not meet this definition.  The military achieves adaptation primarily through planning.  For any operation, be it training or real world the Air Force has a plan and at least one backup plan.  If neither will work communications to coordinate and execute a plan that will work are always available.  And yes back up communications are also available.

There are different levels of strategy in an organization.  What we have discussed primarily is high level organizational strategy.  Strategic planning did not change in the military departments.  Units that required a shift in leadership similarly had to employ a shift in their strategy processes.  As complexity increases in an organization, “strategy formulation needs to evolve and embrace not only the traditional analytical approach but also the dynamic dialectic approach” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 33).  To be effective strategy will created by dynamic bottom up and top down methods.  The resultant strategy will be clear, fluid, and owned by the entire organization (Obolensky, 2014, fig.3.4).

Although leadership style did not shift in the Air Force, there were things that could have been done better for those of us not directly involved in the technology boom of the 1990s.  Town hall meetings explaining the arrival, placement, and functions of new equipment before it showed up on our doorstep would have eliminated a great deal of confusion and wasted time.  Admittedly, leadership was uncertain of the capability and application in the line operations.  They could have simply told us what they did and did not know and prepared us for what was to come.  I am not sure why that meeting did not occur, but it would have helped.  That said, in my time in the Air Force, I did not meet a single senior leader that I perceived to be playing the charade game. 

Reference;

Obolensky, N.,(2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty, (2nd ed). Farnham Surrey, England. Gowan PublishingLimited.

A633.3.4.RB_BorutyAlan_Complexity Science

Complexity Science

I am a product of the Air Force.  I understand hierarchical organizations.  From the time I entered until the day I retired I knew every link in my chain of command from my immediate supervisor to the Commander in Chief.  Over the years, I saw many organizational changes.  Some of them were very significant.  None of them changed the overall hierarchical structure.  The military departments are all hierarchies and that is exactly what they need to be.  That does not mean that hierarchical do not evolve.  While it is true that they are still a strict top down command and control hierarchy, they have made changes and improvements in many areas.  Those changes generally follow improved processes, advancements in technology, and better understanding of concepts.  Strategy development has indeed evolved since I first enlisted in 1982.  Back then strategy was developed at the top.  The pieces of that development eventually trickled down to the rank and file (usually via the read file), but it was not completely clear, it was fixed and directive, and I felt no ownership at all.  This falls in line with a Type 1 organization, Functional Silo (Obolensky, 2014).  Disclaimer:  My impression of the process may be flawed for several reasons.  It was a long time ago and more significantly my point of view truthfully did not include the Air Force Strategy.  As a new Airman many, many subjects were simply above my paygrade.  I did however know the quickest way to wash, wax, and buff the shop floor.  I along with all of the other Airmen with similar tenure and station performed that duty often.

A few years later, was a new Staff Sergeant, a new supervisor, and a new non-commissioned officer.  My point of view had expanded and the Air Force expected more from me.  I recall reading the announcement for the Strategic Planning Conference.  I was not invited of course.  The wing commander would attend.  What I saw was a tasking to the group commanders for input.  Eventually that tasking was levied on the squadron commanders to provide input to their group commanders.  After all, it is a hierarchy.  Which may be the genesis of the phrase misery loves company.  Things that involved work flowed down freely.  Golf tournaments and happy hour could be handled at higher levels.  This is the first time I recall a request for strategy inputs or realized that such a conference even existed.  The results of the conference took a long time to be released, but I did read the document.  It was not at all what I expected and it was mind numbingly boring.  However, I understood it, it was still fixed, and for some reason I felt some ownership, perhaps even pride after reading it.  This manifestation actually falls in line with the Type 2 organization, Cross-Functional Matrix (Obolensky, 2014).  Near the end of my career, I was Chief Master Sergeant and Group Superintendent.  The process had not changed.  The announcement of the conference came, the tasking rolled down hill, and the conference took place.  The document was released much faster (everyone had computers).  This time the release was announced in conjunction with commander’s call.  The wing commander actually held four sessions to discuss the outcome of the conference.  Everyone was invited (mandatory attendance) and I found it informative.  I was unsure why he chose to conduct the briefings, but was glad that he did.  It is important that everyone be aware of the organizations strategy and path forward.  Strategy will not evolve into the bottom up categories or become fluid due to the nature of the business.  But it can be clearly understood and at least partially owned.  In May of 2015 the Air Force released its first ever Strategic Master Plan.  It is a 20-year plan that took nine months to write.  It will be updated every two years.  It is 65 pages long.  I will include a link to the document in the references for your reading pleasure.

Feedback in the Air Force has completely evolved since I first enlisted.  Feedback was not required nor was it conducted for the first six years I was in.  Feedback only happened when someone had done something wrong or was otherwise in trouble.  It was the same for counseling.  There were no positive connections to either of those events.  Feedback was a one-way boss to subordinate feedback typical of Type 1 organizations(Obolensky, 2014).

I was in Leadership School the first time anyone tried to explain how feedback and counseling were positive and should be done regularly.  All I could think was, you do not know my boss.  I also thought, this will not work.  I was being introduced to Situational Leadership and I was wrong.  It does work although my boss never gave in to it to my knowledge.  And the evolution took off in the normal Air Force manner from there.  Documented feedback sessions became mandatory for everyone twice per reporting period.  This transition was very difficult and widely resisted because of the way it was it was implemented.  But, eventually it took hold because actually talking to the people you supervise now and again is indeed a good thing.  It improved morale.  People knew what was expected of them.  Attitudes changed and performance improved.  People were happy…who knew?  The Air Force invests in its leaders at all levels.  The latest leadership theories are taught and explored.  Supervisors practice using e different techniques for providing feedback and conducting effective counseling sessions.  The evolution moved fast.  When I retired, 360 degree feedback was being taught and utilized.  This feedback is two-way communication between the boss and subordinate, it includes inputs from the subordinates peers and where it applies, inputs from outside contacts are discussed.  This is consistent with Type 3 organizations, CAS (Obolensky, 2014).  Evolution can and should occur within organizations regardless of its structure.  Obolensky (2014) is not teaching us otherwise.  His intent is to provide more than one way to recognize an organization’s progression as it transitions to a CAS organization. 

Over the next 10 years the Air Force will continue to evolve as it learns and applies lessons, Incorporates technology advancements, and as its learns from its new members who are getting smarter and more capable each year.  During all of this the Air Force will remain a strict hierarchy and I will remain retired.

~Pete

References:

Link to USAF Strategic Master Plan: http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/Force%20Management/Strategic_Master_Plan.pdf?timestamp=1434024300378

Obolenski, N.,(2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty, (2nd ed). Farnham Surrey, England. Gowan PublishingLimited.

A633.3.3.RB_BorutyAlan_Complex Adaptive Systems

Complex Adaptive Systems

A Complex Adaptive System (CAS) is an “entity consisting of many diverse and autonomous components or parts (called agents) which are interrelated, interdependent, linked through many (dense) interconnections, and behave as a unified whole in learning from experience and in adjusting (not just reacting) to changes in the environment” (BusinessDictionary.com, 2017).  Obolensky (2014) teaches us that complex systems have four common features: self-organization, inter-relatedness, adaptive nature, and emergence.  These common features interact, adapt, and adjust continuously and over time evolve into a system is able to adapt itself to a changing environment (Obolensky 2014).

The Morning Star Company was founded in 1970 as a flat organization.  When I read about the Morning Star Company, my initial reaction was disbelief.  It goes against everything I thought I knew.  My research for this assignment led me to the Valve Corporation.  Its organizational structure and philosophy is almost identical to that of Morning Star.  Valve calls its organizational structure flat.  In their Handbook for New Employees, Valve (2012) explains that “a flat structure removes every organizational barrier between your work and the customer enjoying that work” (p. 6).  There is no management and employees do not report to anyone.  Employees run the company.  They approve projects, they decide what and when to ship products to the customer.  Employees choose what they work on; they are expected to find the most valuable work they can do and then do it. 

Both Morning Star and Valve are good examples of a CAS organization.  Obolensky (2014) describes a CAS organization as a “dynamic organization where teams are formed, perform, and then disappear as the need arises.  What forms the foundation (or cornerstones) of this dynamic are clear people processes and policies, sound and flexible information and communication technology systems, and transparent, inclusive and flexible strategy development processes.  People are very flexible and systems are open so information is shared and total transparency is gained” (p. 26).  According to Obolensky (2014) not many of these organizations exist yet.  However, Morning Star and Valve are both clearly CAS organizations.  And, both are extremely successful.  They share almost identical operational characteristics.  Compared side by side, one might mistake one for the other.  However, what these organizations do is radically different.  Morning Star processes tomatoes and Valve builds video games.  Their organizational structure enables them to arguably be the best in their respective industries.

The implications for almost any organization should be clear.  The CAS organization could be the solution to the uncertain and unpredictable environment that leadership has to operate in today.  For many industries hierarchical structures and leadership styles are no longer effective.  For these industries, Obolensky (2014) bluntly suggests “evolve or die” (p. 21).  However, this evolution will not be easy or quick.  The flat organization is the polar opposite of hierarchy.  Everything from the way decisions are made to the way every employee thinks has to change.  In some organizations, this challenge will be insurmountable.

I believe that changing from traditional hierarchical structures and leadership styles is not only the right thing to do, it is a must thing to do.  After giving the issue more consideration, I must contradict myself on a point I made in another discussion.  The transition or evolution from hierarchy to CAS should not be rushed.  Obolensky (2014) describes how the evolution might flow in typical organizations quite well.  It must evolve, it cannot be forced.  It is not a mechanical transition, it is a mental evolution that must be reached by every member of the organization.  Even then, I am not positive transitioning an organization to a CAS is possible.  My concern is based on a few observations I made while looking at Morning Star and Valve.

Both organizations were organized with a flat structure and the operational culture from the beginning.  They know no other culture.  Both consider hiring employees from traditional structures a risky proposition and report up to 50% of those employees that are hired from traditional organizations fail to adjust and leave within a couple of years (Hamel, 2011) Valve, (2012). 

Both agree that hiring the right person is very difficult, but absolutely critical for the organization to work.  In its Handbook for New Employees, Valve (2012) prioritizes the hiring process in this manner.  “Hiring well is the most important thing in the universe.  Nothing else comes close.  It’s more important than breathing.  So when you’re working on hiring—participating in an interview loop or innovating in the general area of recruiting—everything else you could be doing is stupid and should be ignored”(p. 44)!  The wrong mix of people added to the organization Valve claims will cause significant damage, even failure. This leads me to conclude that the CAS organization is as fragile as an ecosystem that suddenly dies or a species that goes extinct.

It is important to note that Morning Star and Valve are privately owned, self-funded companies.  In fact, I think this could prove to be a prerequisite to successfully operate a flat business.  Some of the practices and decisions are unconventional.  Many are not intuitive or well understood, and would likely raise concerns from investors.  Those concerns would, minimally, interrupt operations or worse change the direction of the company.  If you do not employ hierarchical practices internally, why would you be controlled by one externally?

In business, the ability to make smart decisions quickly, operate more efficiently while reducing costs, and having the ability to predict changes sooner and with more accuracy, is a very attractive proposition.  For many organizations, it is also quickly becoming the requirement for continued success.  The implication is that flattening out the organization, reducing the layers of management and pushing decision making down to the expertise level is the right thing to do.  However, it is not an easy thing to do.  Moving forward should be done with diligence and caution.

The Martin Reeves (2014) video on strategy, to me, was a bit underwhelming, but it did contain some valid points for organizations to consider as they define strategy.  Primarily strategy is not a one size fits all concept.  If we have to conduct business differently as a result of changes in the environment, then it follows that the way we develop strategy should similarly change.  Reeves identified five environments that businesses operate in that require different approaches to strategy.  The environments he described are: classical, adaptive, visionary, shaping, and renewal (Reeves, 2014).  Classical includes companies appropriately operating in traditional hierarchies.  They are predictable so the traditional approach to strategy is appropriate…planning.  CAS organizations operate in an adaptive environment.  They are not predictable so the approach is experimentation.  Visionary environments are entrepreneurial.  They can be predicted and influenced because the environment is being created.  Shaping environments occur when business ecosystems work together to change the environment.  They can be influenced but not predicted.  Finally, the renewal environment occurs when strategy is out of sync with its environment.  Transitioning organizations fall into this category and their strategy objective is survival.  Transition into an environment that fits your business objectives and resume operations (Reeves, 2014). 

According to Obolensky (2014), as an organization transitions from traditional hierarchy to CAS, so does its strategy.  It will evolve from a top-down imposed type that is clear, fixed and not owned by the people to one that is a bottom-up and top-down dynamic that is clear, fluid, and owned by the entire organization. 

My take away is that rapid changes in information and technology made some business environments unpredictable and uncertain.  Those business are having to adapt their operations to remain successful.  Businesses conduct operations according to established strategy.  Therefore if the environment changes, strategy must change to continue operating.

Strategy is not a plan nor is it a buzzword.  It is the means by which companies operate.  I believe it is more important now than ever before for an organization to define its strategy and get it right, then make adjustments as often as necessary in order to achieve their goals.

~Pete

References:

complex adaptive system (CAS). BusinessDictionary.com. Retrieved November 03, 2017, from BusinessDictionary.com website: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/complex-adaptive-system-CAS.html

Hamel, G. (2011). First, Let's Fire all the Managers (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 48-60.

Obolenski, N.,(2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty, (2nd ed). Farnham Surrey, England. Gowan PublishingLimited.

Reeves, M. (2014). Martin Reeves: Your strategy needs a strategy. Ted Institute, (December 2014). Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE_ETgaFVo8

Valve Corporation (2012). Handbook for new employees. Accessed November 4, 2017. Retrieved from: http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/Valve_NewEmployeeHandbook.pdf