Dr. Mary Uhl-Bien Howard Hawks Chair in Business Ethics &
Leadership University of Nebraska Complexity Leadership in
Healthcare Organizations 2012 Mary Uhl-Bien Slide 2 What is
Complexity Leadership? Traditional Leadership Complexity Leadership
Alignment and control Change efforts driven top-down Relies on
leader vision, inspiration, and execution Interaction and
adaptability Change is emergent (in context) Seeds organization
with generative (i.e., adaptive) properties and uses for day-to-day
performance Slide 3 Executive Level Bureaucracy Organization Level
Bureaucracy Production Level Bureaucracy We have always studied
leadership in contexts of bureaucracy Slide 4 CAS Agent CAS Agent
CAS Agent Complexity brings to leadership a lens of Complex
Adaptive Systems (CAS) Slide 5 Organization Level Executive Level
Production Level Agent CAS Agent CAS Agent CAS Agent CAS Complexity
Leadership Theory (CLT) addresses bureaucracy and CAS together.
Slide 6 Administrative SystemEntrepreneurial System Productive
Tension Adaptive Leadership Generative Leadership Complexity
Leadership Model Administrative Leadership Adaptive System Slide 7
Variety of Stimuli High Low Variety of Responses LowHigh The
Ordered Regime The Complex Regime The Chaotic Regime 45 Key Premise
of CLT: It takes complexity to beat complexity Adapted from Boisot
and McKelvey, 2010, Academy of Management Review Slide 8 Research
Findings Slide 9 Purpose of Study To examine leadership and
adaptability in the healthcare industry using a complexity lens.
Slide 10 Methodology Qualitative investigation in 6 hospitals For
each hospital we examined leadership processes in the context of a
strategic initiative Each hospital was visited twice First with
executive team to identify the strategic initiative Second to
snowball sample in organization around the initiative Total of 195
interviews over a 16-month period (April, 2008-July, 2009) Slide 11
Overarching Finding 1. Healthcare is in complexity, which is
evidenced by increasing variety in (and pressures from) the
environment 2. Traditional leadership is inadequate for operating
in these contexts because it generates an ordered response that
does not meet the needs of complexity. 3. Leaders who respond
effectively in these environments enable complex responses by
creating climates and conditions conducive to adaptive leadership
and enhanced performance. Slide 12 Pressures from Environment High
Low Variety Responses LowHigh Ordered Response Complexity Response
Chaotic Regime 45 Ordered v. Complex Response Adapted from Boisot
and McKelvey, 2010, Academy of Management Review Slide 13 Findings:
Complexity In complex environmentscharacterized by high variety and
pressures for adaptability organizations need complex responses,
i.e., enabling dynamic interaction and emergence. This goes against
natural instincts of many managers (and employees!) who want to
respond to complexity with directives and control (to generate
feelings of order). Slide 14 Ordered v. Complex Response Ordered
Response Complexity Response Traditional Leadership focuses on
top-down influence processes to motivate and align organizational
members around the strategic vision Administrative Leadership
top-down leadership loosens administrative systems Generative
leadership informal leadership fuels entrepreneurial system
Adaptive leadership enables emergence for the organization Slide 15
Summary: Leadership Outcomes Despite the importance of complex
responses, only 2 of the 6 hospitals engaged in leadership styles
appropriate to a complex response. The other 4 hospitals responded
using traditional leadership approaches. Slide 16 Summary:
Leadership Outcomes Of the two who engaged in complex responses:
One is thriving The other overwhelmed the system ( Houchin and
MacLean, 2005 ), resulting in the leadership team being ejected.
Slide 17 Summary: Leadership Outcomes Of the four who engaged in
traditional responses: Two used overpowering administrative
leadership that stifled or suppressed adaptive dynamics. The
leadership teams of these hospitals are either completely turned
over or in leadership transition (with CEOs of both organizations
no longer there). The other two are either in status quo or steady
state. Slide 18 Findings: Leadership Responses and Outcomes Slide
19 Traditional Leadership Slide 20 Administrative System
Entrepreneurial System Which suppresses adaptive dynamics
Traditional Leadership Focuses on alignment and control Slide 21
Complexity in Environment Desire for Control Traditional Leadership
Bureaucratization Pressures on System Traditional Leadership
(Tightens Administrative function) Stifles Adaptive Dynamics
Findings In our data, traditional leadership looks like this Slide
22 Key Point The key is to recognize and appreciate the value of
adaptive dynamics and interact with and enable them. That is the
critical difference between traditional leadership and complexity
leadership. Slide 23 Adaptive Dynamics Slide 24 Adaptive dynamics
are often present or trying to be present in organizations. They
look like new ideas, innovations, workarounds, pushback, prosocial
rule-breaking, voice. They are enabled by generative leadership.
Generative leadership helps generate new ideas and champion them
into the system. Generative leadership contributes to bottom-up
emergence in organizations Slide 25 Administrative
SystemEntrepreneurial System Emergence Generative Leadership Slide
26 Key Point It is critical that organizational leaders recognize
and value generative leadership. Generative leadership and adaptive
dynamics are a core source of innovation and adaptability for the
firm. That said, they are easily suppressed. Slide 27 Adaptive
Leadership Slide 28 Enhances organizational adaptability and
performance by creating conditions that simultaneously: Allow the
organization to transform itself to navigate fundamental shifts in
the environment and perform seamlessly on a day-to-day basis to
satisfy customers, shareholders, partners, and other stakeholders
(Garud et al., 2006) Slide 29 Adaptive Leadership Channels energy
and emergence through a combination of tightening and loosening
behaviors. Loosening behaviors (i.e., exploration) involve enabling
conditions for interaction, search, experimentation and information
flows. Tightening behaviors (i.e., exploitation) involve reducing
variance through choice, execution, standardization, and
restricting information flows. Slide 30 Administrative
SystemEntrepreneurial System Emergence Adaptive Leadership
Generative Leadership Complexity Leadership Framework
Administrative Leadership Slide 31 Emergence (and Suppression) When
engaged appropriately (e.g., simple rules), administrative
constraints channel generative leadership to perform in productive
ways. Administrators get pressured to change from adaptors and
innovators. If administrators regularly turn down these adaptive
requests, the organization learns to be not adaptive (generative
and adaptive leadership is suppressed or stifled). Slide 32
Conclusions Healthcare needs to respond to complexity with
complexity: Loosen the administrative system Fuel the
entrepreneurial system (and generative leadership) Develop the
adaptive system (adaptive leadership and adaptive dynamics) to
capitalize on emergence Slide 33 Conclusions: Not Feel-Good This
can feel very disruptive to organizational members. Complexity
leadership is not a feel-good model of leadership typically seen in
leadership theorizing and practitioner-oriented books. Because it
goes against traditional understanding of what leaders do, many
will not recognize it as effective leadership. Adaptive leaders
often feel they are going against the tide, and it takes great
tenacity to withstand the the tremendous pressures to pull back to
equilibrium. Slide 34 Conclusions: The Rubber Band Effect The key
is watching for the rubber band effectthe snap back against the
leaders that occurs when the organization gets pulled too hard and
the rubber band breaks. Leaders need to pull the rubber band (the
change effort) so it is stretched (but not overly tight), and then
pull gradually from the front end, making sure the back end
follows, to move the entire system forward (to a new equilibrium).
Slide 35 References Boisot, M., & McKelvey, B. (2010).
Integrating modernist and postmodernist perspectives on
organizations: A complexity science bridge. Academy of Management
Review, 35(3), 415-433. Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., &
Sambamurthy, V. (2006). Emergent by design: Performance and
transformation at Infosys Technologies. Organization Science,
17(2), 277-286. Houchin, K., & MacLean, D. (2005). Complexity
theory and strategic change: An empirically informed critique.
British Journal of Management, 16(2), 149-166. Surie, G., &
Hazy, J. (2006). Generative leadership: Nurturing innovation in
complex systems. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 8(4),
13-26. Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2008). Complexity
Leadership, Part 1: Conceptual Foundations. Charlotte: Information
Age Publishing. Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2009). Complexity
leadership in bureaucratic forms of organizing: A meso model. The
Leadership Quarterly, 20, 631650. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., &
McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting
leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The
Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298-318. Slide 36 References Boisot,
M., & McKelvey, B. (2010). Integrating modernist and
postmodernist perspectives on organizations: A complexity science
bridge. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 415-433. Houchin, K.,
& MacLean, D. (2005). Complexity theory and strategic change:
An empirically informed critique. British Journal of Management,
16(2), 149-166. Surie, G., & Hazy, J. (2006). Generative
leadership: Nurturing innovation in complex systems. Emergence:
Complexity and Organization, 8(4), 13-26. Uhl-Bien, M., &
Marion, R. (2008). Complexity Leadership, Part 1: Conceptual
Foundations. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Uhl-Bien, M.,
& Marion, R. (2009). Complexity leadership in bureaucratic
forms of organizing: A meso model. The Leadership Quarterly, 20,
631650. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007).
Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the
industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly,
18(4), 298-318.
