Abstract

Management of today organizations is required to forecast, understand and deal subjects that are to

large or complex to be framed in classical leadership models which are following traditionally a linear

thinking, finding itself in a frustration position when compared with requirements of general accepted

leadership act and being unable to find straight answers.

This paper is offering a literature review and a concrete case study of how to deal complexity through a

complex adaptive leadership act in accordance with Obolensky model (2010), this solution being

adopted based on a analyze of current leadership context and other current available leadership model

alternatives.

It is shown how the complex adaptive leadership theory can provide in practice strategies to deal

complex supply chain operations subjects ok: training and culture development, functional processes

installment, new facility and equipment installment and operation, all linked with opening a new

manufacturing plant using current structure of existing plant in context of growth and constrained by

budget and performance limits.

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................................3

THEORETICAL PART.............................................................................................................................................................4

CASE STUDY DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................................................7

1. BRIEF PRESENTATION OF THE PROFILE OF THE COMPANY/ORGANIZATION...........................................................................72. DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLEXITY ISSUE UNDER INVESTIGATION....................................................................73. ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE(S) ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFIC COMPLEX ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP THEORY................................8

Strategy for Domain of Training and Organization Culture (High People / High Goal):..................................................9Strategy for Domain of Functional Processes Installment (High People / Low Goal):....................................................10Strategy for Domain of Facility and Equipment Installment and Operating (Low People / High Goal):........................10Complexity ranking............................................................................................................................................................10

CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................................................................12

References...................................................................................................................................................................................14

Introduction

Current report consists in analyzing aspects of complex adaptive leadership theory which occurs in

installing and running a supply chain organization of a multinational company acting in automotive

domain and located in Romania.

The company is a labor intensive organization and has more than 1200 employees with a direct to

indirect ratio of 23% and a yearly sales turnover exceeding slightly 40 million euro.

The plant has an organization that is specific to automotive suppliers: manufacturing plant located close

to car manufacturer and with production that is dedicated to a specific carline platform, managed

through a business units headquarter linked to customer management located in France, and a corporate

headquarters that is located in Germany.

Fortunately the actual location workload is growing benefiting from a standardization project of the

actual customer, additional efforts being required in supply chain in order to cope with it.

In parallel a new customer and its specific products portfolio have to be installed in fastest way possible

to overcome the bad effects of geopolitical movements in North Africa. The company management is

planning to benefit economies of scale and use the actual overheads structure to implement and run the

future new business. Due to short lead time for launching the new business, there is no time to locate the

actual and new business under same roof, so a decision is made to rent a building that is 10 km distance

from actual location.

Supply chain is part of this new organization and required to sustain this ambitious project, and to adapt

its functionality in order to best perform, the stake for the management being to motivate staff to embark

in this journey.

Theoretical part

Screening the opinions about nowadays situation we see that discontinuity and change are a theme, and

in the same time a truism, that occurs to different environments: countries’ economies, organizations

management and management discipline. When we look at macro situation, irreversible changes have

already taken place in world economy according to Drucker (1986) and an uncoupling in-between what

used to be linked has happened. When we look to organizational context, as discontinuity is one of the

single constant, many of today leaders are unable to lead their organizations to cope with new of

everything and disappointing according to Nonaka and Takeuchi (2011). When we look at management

discipline, as sustained by Obolensky (2010), a huge discontinuity occurred due to low peace of

leadership development in comparison with other domains like military, communication, transportation

technology or human knowledge.

Due to mentioned context, the debate on good answers for question of whom, what and how to lead

today organizations it is a very vivid one. It is emerging in both academic and business current literature

(Thow Yick, 2007; Seiler and Pfister, 2009; Obolensky, 2010) a new way of thinking that is attempting

to integrate the too complex and ever-changing nowadays business environment with the peoples and

their required endowment to lead. The objective is to find suitable alternatives to lead the today too

hectic organizations and problematic that is far too large to be covered or control, when using the

classical view and tools of leadership, this being a consequence of the already occurred discontinuity.

The effort to bridge and integrate scientific theories of complexity management with leadership

frameworks is conducting to development of a distinctive thinking (Lichtenstein, at all., 2006; Uhl-Bien,

2007, Obolensky, 2010, Thow Yick, 2009). We can see that perception change about leadership is

actively conducted aiming to overcome several paradigms: to minimize the discontinuity of leadership

development in contrast with development of other domains, using a none-linear view of the business

system and creating a merge of terms for manager and leader with a new role.

Dominant management thinking creates “a belief in control” (Stacey, 1996, p1) that is wrong due to fact

that it is used a linear model of organization to a system that is none-linear in realty, and this means that

any build strategy is meant to failure whenever none-linearity is relevant. There is a need to approach

the leadership from a more rich perspective, viewing it as “a complex interactive dynamic through

which adaptive outcomes emerge” (Uhl-Bien, 2007, p. 314) and to relate it with complexity science.

Organizations have to evolve or die, and the right path is to become a bubble-type organization or else

saying a complex adaptive system which requires a complex adaptive leadership (Obolensky, 2010).

Leaders or managers, the dichotomy about organizations heads personality presented by Zaleznic (1978)

appears to be diluted. Druker says about today organization leaders “An effective executive does not

need to be a leader in the sense that the term is now most commonly used” (Druker, 2004, p. 58)

underlying that charisma and other attributes know as leaders’ distinctive characteristics are not enough

or valid to support the today leaders. On the same way, study of Collins (2001) proofs as fake different

myths/fads promoted by leaders and which, once done, will take the company from good to great. It

reveals that the essence of success of constantly performing companies stands in its leaders’ willingness

to run with a steady and pragmatic commitment to excellence attitude, launched with hard working and

maintained over time despite of quick fix solutions.

There is a work done to frame models of situational leadership that will suit defined specific situations

as there is difficult to find what type of leadership to use transversal for all cases and best respond

different particularities, making in this way irrelevant the dilemma of leader or manager. Framed in six

leadership styles (Goleman, 2000), or in four leader behavior styles (Hersey and Blanchard, 1981) the

models are focusing of how leaders prefer to exercise their role, being admitted that managers are not

aware of all styles or find it difficult to practice as they will not be in a natural behavior, being admitted

that only the best leaders are practicing a wide panel of leadership skills or more productive styles

(Zenger, at. all., 2011; Schreiber, and Carley, 2006). On the other side, the individuals in hierarchy are

not left alone and solutions are identified for themselves to thrive in their relations with bosses by

understanding and mange it or by understanding the how to manage time and tasks (Gabarro and Kotter,

2005; Onken, at. all., 1999; Stayer, 1990), even being stressed that inability to deal such aspects leads to

unnecessary leadership stress (Obolensky, 2010).

An alternative model to be used in dealing with complexity, is the one developed by Snowden and

Boone (2007) which offers Cynefin framework to managers to understand the operating context in four

arrays (simple, complicated, complex, chaotic) and offers them a matrix of responses and actions based

on the array and danger level.

A step forward, the complex adaptive leadership model is focused on strategy and eventually set the

steps of action to be followed in different situations independently of the leader’s style preference or its

personality (Obolensky, 2010).

As defined by Obolensky (2010, p. 179) the aim of complex adaptive leadership is to enable the devolve

style when there are possible to be followed four strategies (sell, tell, involve and devolve) to match

them with people skills and will, using different attractors and being created like this a dynamic that is

the core of the system.

On the other side, there is a stream of thinking asking to manage complexity by using diagnose and

simplification, standardization or automation afterwards, being in this way obtained better

organizational results (Gottfredson, at. all., 2008; Babe, 2011).

Case Study Description

Following section is analyzing a practical case using the tools and methods of complex adaptive

leadership theory.

1. Brief presentation of the profile of the company/organization

The local organizational structure of the company consists of a general director which is coordinating

hierarchically nine departments covering the administrative and operations business processes, among

which is also the supply chain. As this company is a part of a multinational, besides the hierarchic

coordination each department manager has one or more functional directors which are located in

headquarters in Germany and France.

Supply chain department contains five organizational levels: department manager, senior coordinator,

and supervisor, team leader, operator / clerk / analyst, whereas the structure covers 20 different job

positions linked to 15 different supply chain process domains and a headcount of 75 staff, to operate in

2 physical locations, with almost half of structure newly employed.

2. Detailed examination of the complexity issue under investigation

As it can be concluded from above section, complexity in managing this supply chain organization

derives from a low concentration of teams with same activities and domains, therefore segregation of

activities and diversity of topics is quite big, and amplified also by the physical separation of the

locations.

Also, complexity is derived from multi face problems needed to be solved in quick and effective way

with implications spreading from international trade, commercial and financial to project management,

business planning, transportation and warehouse management, training and working methods

development and deployment of organizational culture.

In addition, as supply chain drives company planning on mid and short term aligning demand and

resources, the consequence is that supply chain organization is interacting to almost all other company

organizational departments and levels, being the initiator and the beneficiary of different change

requirements.

The management of supply chain has to find the good strategy to enable a smooth development of actual

location and in parallel for the new location to be able to:

i) deploy corporate culture and train the new structure;

ii) install functional processes;

iii) install and operate facility and equipment;

iv) current structure must be embarked in sustaining this initiative and cost performing in budget

boundaries

3. Analysis of the issue(s) according to the specific complex adaptive leadership theory

Considering the mentioned context and using tools and methodology of complex adaptive leadership

theory, it will be set onwards a frame of action.

First step to run is to set the phase space roadmap (Obolensky, 2010, p. 160) in terms of peoples or goal

focus for each of the job position of the supply chain structure, aiming in this way to understand what is

the good strategy the leader can employ. When is about people focus it means to diagnose if there is a

opportunity or need for individuals abilities to be developed or for the personal relations to be

developed. When is about goal focus, diagnose have to state if there is an opportunity or a need to use

different peoples to meet the goal.

The below table 1 shows the map of the current state of the actual organization in relation with people

skill and will and also the appraisal if there is a focus on people or on goal. I have to mention that the

conclusions of both tables 1 and 2 are containing aggregated figures outlined following individual and

team discussions kept in relation to launch of new location.

Table 1 Map actual structure: focus and people skill / will for development of new location

Domain

Job position

Training and

Organizational Culture

Functional Processes

Installment

Facilities and

Equipment Installment

and Operating

People skill/will [high/low] Skill

L= 5

H= 1

Will

L= 3

H= 3

Skill

L= 1

H= 5

Will

L= 5

H= 1

Skill

L= 2

H= 4

Will

L= 4

H= 2

Department coordinator Low High High Low High Low

Supervisor High Low High High High High

Team Leader Low High High Low High Low

Analyst Low High High Low Low Low

Clerk Low Low Low Low Low Low

Operators Low Low High Low High High

Focus People [high/low] High High Low

Focus Goal [high/low] High Low High

When interpreting the results of the assessment from perspective of skill/will we can see that, there is a

disproportionate in-between the ration of skill / will:

- domain of functional process installment benefits the higher skills rank (H=5), being closed

followed by facility and equipment installment and operating (H=4), with a high gap (H=1) for

the organizational culture and training;

- will is benefiting a much lower aggregate ranking, domain of training and organizational culture

installment benefits higher will rank (H=3), other two being ranked in descending order

Strategies to be employed by leader for each domain, considering the above evaluation presented in

table 1 and the complex adaptive leadership theory would be as described below.

Strategy for Domain of Training and Organization Culture (High People / High Goal):

According to Obolensky (2010, p. 160) the leader has to know the solution but on the other side the

people have to own the solution too. So the exercise is for the leader to sell solution using different

techniques which will convince the people to assimilate it, acting as a directive attractor. The leader can

use the SPIN (Situation, Problem, Implication, Need, Payoff) model to get a fast result (Adams, 2011),

or the GROW model (Wilson, 2010). When sales is done, then leader have to tell the how because when

we look to the table 1 the followers have a low skill level. As motivation level is the highest, the good

track is for the leader to devolve right after the sell and tell and avoid unnecessary leadership stress

which might occur from fear of letting go and working too hard (Obolensk, 2010, p. 143).

Strategy for Domain of Functional Processes Installment (High People / Low Goal):

According to Obolensky (2010, p. 161) in this situation the leader do not have the solution or holds it

back and allow people to discover it, acting as a development attractor being more preoccupied to

increase motivation and involve and when this achieved then devolve. For lasting and effective results

the leader has to understand and underlay among the organization the principles of collaborative teams

as exposed by Adler at. all. (2011).

Strategy for Domain of Facility and Equipment Installment and Operating (Low People / High Goal):

According to Obolensky (2010, p. 175) in this situation the leader have to act as a reminder attractor,

meaning to tell and then devolve. In this context the people want to do, and know to do, however some

time it forgets and it needs to be reminded. With the leader intervention of reminding takes place, the

activity follows the planed track, and the leadership act resumes. Management tools like OEE or TPM

are appropriate ones to be deployed to sustain this domain for lasting results, as sustained by Pophaley

(2010).

Complexity ranking

As will of the staff is a very significant dimension of the analyze, it is important to assess what is the

state of actual structure in terms of clarity of the roles and responsibility and level of complexity, in

order to understand if such factors have a motivation relevancy (Whitsett, 1975).

Table 2: Map actual structure roles and responsibilities in future organization including assessment of complexity rank vs. today

Job position Absorb extra

workload in

actual location

Contribute to new

location

development

Future allocation Complexity rank

[2 – significant, 1

– average, 0.5

low]

Central

structure

Dedicated

structure

Department Coordinator Yes Yes Yes - +2

Supervisor Yes Train new comers - Yes +1

Team Leader Yes Train new comers - Yes +0.5 (temporary)

Analyst Yes Train new comers Yes Yes + 2

Clerk Yes Train new comers - Yes +0.5 (temporary)

Operators Yes Train new comers - Yes +0.5 (temporary)

Above table 2 reflects a higher expected rank of complexity to positions of department coordinators and

analysts. This is due to fact that these positions are expected to operate shared for both locations in this

way having amplified the work complexity due to physical separation even if the work content is

reduced. According to study of Perona and Miragliotta (2004), the complexity in supply chain has a

direct link in organization performance and therefore there is a need reduce complexity by addressing

two leviers: the basic complexity reduction and management leviers to reduce complexity. A working

tool to adopt can be the analyze roles and responsibilities and spans of control as recommended by

Garvin and Levesque (2008).

The high complexity rank of coordinator level employs a high impact over all supply chain organization

and act as “strange attractor” (Obelensky, 2010, p. 177), requiring from the leader to exercise a dynamic

of strategies in relation with this position which consist of complex adaptive leadership.

Conclusion

The theoretical part introduced the actual issues linked with complexity management.

As a fact of nowadays life, multifaceted discontinuity is in spreading from economy, to management

thinking versus other domains and finally to organizations management calling for an actual approach to

overcome its bad effects.

A response is emerging and we can see patterns of complexity approach which attempt to break old

leadership paradigms making irrelevant the debate about what is distinctive for a leader and a manager,

as well as abandoning assumption of a linear of business environment and embracing a more dynamic

and realistic one.

Classical situational leadership and debate about what is the appropriate leadership style is discusses

together with the implications and options of the leaders and their followers.

Finally the complex adaptive leadership model and alternative ones developed for leaders to help them

deal with complexity are briefly introduced.

The case study is analyses the strategies to be deployed by a leader confronted with a new location

development and with specific constraints, using the complex adaptive leadership model.

New location development is approached through installments of three domains and was identified

specific strategies which the leader can deploy to achieve its objectives:

- training and organizational culture: a directive attractor strategy along with SPIN and GROW

tools

- functional processes: a development attractor strategy and collaborative teams tool

- facility and equipment operating: a reminder attractor strategy along with OEE and TPM tools

- complexity ranking impact over actual and future structure: a strange attractor strategy along

with tools to reduce complexity and analyze span of control

Finally, a pragmatic response is provided to a real operations challenge and the leader is equipped with

strategies which will allow him to approach all the domains, independently of his own preference or

competence of leading, and leverage the strategies to the actual need of the followers. In addition a

toolbox has been designed to support sustainable results and practicing complex adaptive leadership.

References

Adams, S 2011, 'How To Sell Almost Anything', Forbes.Com, p. 15, Business Source Complete,

EBSCOhost, viewed 28 December 2011.

Adler, P, Hecksher, C, & Prusak, L 2011, 'Building a Collaborative Enterprise', Harvard Business

Review, 89, 7/8, pp. 94-101, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 28 December 2011

Babe, GS 2011, 'The CEO of Bayer Corp. On Creating a Lean Growth Machine', Harvard Business

Review, 89, 7/8, pp. 41-45, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 27 December 2011.

Collins, J 2001, 'Good to Great', Fast Company, 51, pp. 90-104, Computer Source, EBSCOhost, viewed

24 December 2011.

Drucker, PF 1986, 'The changed world economy', Mckinsey Quarterly, 4, pp. 2-26, Business Source

Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 December 2011

Drucker, PF 2004, 'What Makes an Effective Executive. (cover story)', Harvard Business Review, 82, 6,

pp. 58-63, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 December 2011.

Hersey, P, & Blanchard, K 1981, 'So You Want To Know Your Leadership Style?', Training &

Development Journal, 35, 6, p. 34, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 December 2011.

Gabarro, J, & Kotter, J 2005, 'Managing Your Boss', Harvard Business Review, 83, 1, pp. 92-99,

Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 27 December 2011.

Garvin, D, & Levesque, L 2008, 'The Multiunit Enterprise', Harvard Business Review, 86, 6, pp. 106-

117, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 28 December 2011.

Goleman, D 2000, 'LEADERSHIP THAT GETS RESULTS', Harvard Business Review, 78, 2, pp. 78-

90, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 December 2011.

Gottfredson, M, Schaubert, S, & Saenz, H 2008, 'THE NEW LEADER'S GUIDE TO DIAGNOSING

THE BUSINESS. (cover story)', Harvard Business Review, 86, 2, pp. 62-73, Business Source Complete,

EBSCOhost, viewed 27 December 2011

Nonaka, I, & Takeuchi, H 2011, 'The Wise Leader', Harvard Business Review, 89, 5, pp. 58-67,

Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 December 2011.

Lichtenstein, B, Uhl-Bien, M, Marion, R, Seers, A, Orton, J, & Schreiber, C 2006, 'Complexity

leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems', Emergence:

Complexity & Organization, 8, 4, pp. 2-12, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 26

December 2011.

Obolensky, N. (2010) Complex Adaptive Leadership Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Surrey,

Gower.

Oncken, J, Wass, D, & Covey, S 1999, 'Management Time: Who's Got the Monkey?', Harvard Business

Review, 77, 6, p. 178, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 27 December 2011.

Perona, M, & Miragliotta, G 2004, 'Complexity management and supply chain performance assessment.

A field study and a conceptual framework', International Journal Of Production Economics, 90, 1, pp.

103-115, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 December 2011.

Pophaley, M 2010, 'Revisiting OEE as an Assessment Methodology for TPM Activities: A Practical

Analysis', IUP Journal Of Operations Management, 9, 1/2, pp. 35-42, Business Source Complete,

EBSCOhost, viewed 28 December 2011

Schreiber, C, & Carley, K 2006, 'Leadership style as an enabler of organizational complex functioning',

Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8, 4, pp. 61-76, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost,

viewed 23 December 2011.

Seiler, S, & Pfister, A 2009, '“Why did I do this?”: Understanding leadership behavior through a

dynamic five-factor model of leadership', Journal Of Leadership Studies, 3, 3, pp. 41-52, Business

Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 December 2011.

Snowden, D, & Boone, M 2007, 'A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. (cover story)', Harvard

Business Review, 85, 11, pp. 68-76, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 December

2011.

Stacey, R 1996, 'Management and the science of complexity: If organizational life is nonlinear, can

business..', Research Technology Management, 39, 3, p. 8, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost,

viewed 24 December 2011.

Stayer, R 1990, 'How I Learned to Let My Workers Lead', Harvard Business Review, 68, 6, pp. 66-83,

Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 27 December 2011

Thow Yick, L 2007, 'The new intelligence leadership strategy for iCAS', Human Systems Management,

26, 2, pp. 111-122, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 December 2011

Thow-Yick, L 2009, ‘Organizing around Intelligence: The New Paradigm (2nd Edition)’ online,

available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1469391, viewed 26 December 2011

Whitsett, DA 1975, 'Where are your unenriched jobs?', Harvard Business Review, 53, 1, pp. 74-80,

Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 28 December 2011.

Wilson, C 2010, 'Tools of the trade', Training Journal, pp. 70-71, Business Source Complete,

EBSCOhost, viewed 28 December 2011.

Uhl-Bien, M 2007, 'Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the

knowledge era', Leadership Quarterly, 18, 4, pp. 298-318, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences

Collection, EBSCOhost, viewed 24 December 2011.

Zaleznik, A 1977, 'Managers and leaders: Are they different?', Harvard Business Review, 55, 3, pp. 67-

78, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 December 2011.

Zenger, J, Folkman, J, & Edinger, S 2011, 'Making Yourself Indispensable', Harvard Business Review,

89, 10, pp. 84-92, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 27 December 2011.