Dear Organlearners,
Greetings to all of you.
Part 5. Leadership into complexity.
We have seen in part 4 that the deluge by the information explosion makes
it increasingly difficult for leaders to manage a world becoming
increasingly complex. Followers require from their leaders to perform upon
schedule. But as soon as this is not happening, the followers begin to
suspect dishonest promises and even seek for penalties.
Few people are aware that their personal schedule is determined in terms
of their "futuristic time scope" -- the number of days ahead which are
real to them. Surprisingly many people are aware of the future only one
day ahead. Even too many people are aware of the future only one week
ahead. Often in nations those people aware of the future one month or
longer ahead are in the minority. How many people will try to reconstruct
an inner complex movie reaching to beyond one year based on a present
decision, act or statement of a leader? My own observations in our country
points to a figure less than 1%.
Leaders should not only have a long "futuristic time scope", but also be
aware of the complexity involved with such a "futuristic time scope". The
longer the "futuristic time scope", the more complex it becomes. This is
the very reason why the length of the "futuristic time scope" of followers
decrease sort of exponentially like in radioactive decay. The more
unstable an isotope, the shorter its half-life time -- time taken for half
of the nuclei to decay. Similarly, the more unstable an organisation, the
shorter the half-life time "futuristic time scope" of its members.
The "historic time scope" of a person is the number of past days which are
real to that person. The "futuristic time scope" and "historic time scope"
of a person go hand in hand, but not in a linear fashion as I soon will
explain. Surprisingly many followers are aware of the past only one month
back. Even too many followers are aware of the past only one year back.
Often in nations those followers aware of the past going back to before
their own birthday are in the minority. How many followers will try to
reconstruct an inner complex movie reaching to beyond one millennium ago
based on a decision, act or statement of a past leader?
The "historic time scope" of people decreases sort of exponentially just
as the "futuristic time scope" does. Thus these two time scopes of
followers afford the leader an important insight into the stability of the
organisation to be lead. The more the sensitivity (greater the half-life
time) of followers to these two scopes, the greater the stability of that
organisation. Formulating a vision and mission for the organisation is one
of the ways to improve on the "futuristic time scope" of its members. But
the detached observation of the half-life time of both the "historic time
scope" and "futuristic time scope" gives an actual indication how much the
organisation has been stabilised by this vision and mission.
Both the "historic time scope" and "futuristic time scope" are measured
from the "present" as origin. We may reckon that as these two time scopes
become shorter as a result of instability, the more people will become
aware of the present in the remainder. However, the opposite actually
happens as is depicted by sureness. The shorter these two time scopes
become, the more people become oblivious to the present as the stepping
stone into both the past and the future. Also the more people will try to
connect the past without the present to the future with a
"one-to-one-mapping" rather than a "one-to-many-mapping".
Since the cosmos change with "one-to-many-mappings", it seems reasonable
that the future has to be imagined by a "one-to-many-mapping", but not the
past. It is because we are used to tracing the past with a "many-to-one-
apping". However, the art of history is to imagine from some earlier
origin in time the "one-to-many-mapping" leading to the present. The
closer the imagination is to the actual historical development, the better
the mind will be prepared to future developments.
The lack of a long "historic time scope" reminds me of what the historian
Ostwald Sprengler said -- History teaches only one lesson, namely that
people do not learn from the lessons of history. This is a simple truth.
However, the complex truth is that history never back tracks its steps nor
follow exactly the same route twice. Why? The past and the future are not
equal. The future is more complex than the past. Although lessons of the
past seem to repeat themselves, each new occurrence of a past lesson is
more complex by having additional patterns in it. In other words, even in
a lesson from the ancient past we have to expect a "one-to-many-mapping"
in complexity as it repeats itself from time to time.
This increasing complexity is a main reason why people do not learn from
the past. They intuitively cannot accept that the past becomes the future
by a one-to-one-mapping. So what should they do? Paul Kruger, the last
president of the ZAR (Zuid-Afrikaanshe Republiek) before it was demolished
by Britain during the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902) used to say: "Take that
from the past which is good and construct the future upon it."
The fact that the past and the future are not alike, but that the past
becomes more complex in the future, has profound implications for leaders
and followers alike. Authentic leaders want constructive progress for
followers. This involves a number of important complexity laws which
leaders should incorporate into their leadership.
I call them "laws" rather than "principles" because of the way they act.
They act like LEP because of its "one-to many-mapping" (partial ordering).
In our ignorant hubris we may claim that we have found a way to transcend
each of these "laws" like LEP. But in the end we have to pay the penalty
of destructions for doing so. Furthermore, only after the discovery of a
logic for commands I became deeply aware of these "laws" and the need to
articulate them. We become aware of "principles" early in simplicity
thinking, but of the "laws of complexity" only after some complexity
thinking.
First to consider is the LRC (Law of Requisite Complexity). Complexity
increases by discreet creative steps rather than infinitely small amounts
in a linear manner. As soon as one step has been reached, creative
preparations (involving all 7Es) have to be made to take the next
successful step. Provided all the 7Es have increased sufficiently, each
step has the requisite complexity for taking the next step so that the LRC
becomes an open door. However, as soon as some of the 7Es are impaired or
some steps are skipped, the result is failure rather than success. The LRC
has become a closed door.
Leaders lose many followers along the way by not paying attention to the
LRC. Any follower who came up against the LRC as a closed door is
potentially a lost follower. Should a leader pay close attention to any
dissenting faction, the leader may discover the impaired essentialities
which caused those followers to group themselves together. By skilful
communication they may be helped to overcome these impairments and thus be
drawn closer again. This bringing back of followers lost is sometimes
articulated as the principle of missional leadership.
Another law is the LSC (Law of Singularity of Complexity). The more
complex any system becomes, the less the number of systems with that kind
of complexity and the greater the differences between systems with that
kind of complexity. Leaders will thus have many followers with a lower
complexity in personality with smaller differences between them and fewer
followers with a higher complexity in personality with greater differences
between them. Out of the latter comes the next generation of leaders.
Leaders insensitive to the 7Es may easily neglect dignifying the next
generation of potential leaders. Consequently the leader may soon have to
cope with them leading dissenting factions and partisanships. These
upcoming leaders themselves have not yet sufficient experience to know
that they play with fire. For example, an upcoming leader may be aware
that the faction which he/she leads is insensitive to wholeness. He/she
may hope to repair the lack of wholeness in that faction, but this will
not happen because then the very reason for the formation of that faction
has disappeared. This allowing of followers to determine their own future
is sometimes articulated as the principle of authentic leadership.
The LTC (Law of Temporality of Complexity) has to do with time and
complexity. The more complex a system has to become, the longer the
overall time it will take. Furthermore, earlier steps into complexity take
a longer time than later steps. Thus the complexity of a system does not
change linearly with time, but sort of exponentially. Leaders ought to
have special compassion and patience with those followers at the lower
steps of mental complexity. Should LRC become a closed door for them, they
may easily be left behind for good because of this acceleration of
complexity, even after deliberate attempts to bring them back.
However, leaders will also have to take into account those at the higher
steps of mental complexity. They may very soon catch up with the leader.
What to do then depends very much on the 7Es. Give them tasks which depend
on those 7Es in which they have matured more. Also warn them to take
special care in those 7Es of which they are less mature. It would be
detrimental to give them leadership tasks which depend very much on those
7Es of which they are immature. Yet they have to be given non-leadership
tasks intended to improve those 7Es.
The LPC (Law of Pliability of Complexity) has to do with the ability of
complexity to accommodate simplicity. The more complex a system becomes,
the more its properties change from rigid (hard) to pliable (soft). The
properties we should think here of are those which determine the
interaction of the system with its environment. The LPC operates in all
the levels of complexity such as nuclear physics, chemistry, geology,
biology, creativity, learning, believing and loving. Furthermore, the
higher the level, the more profound is the effect of LPC. In the case of
loving, it is usually articulated as "unconditional love".
Leaders should be conscious of the LPC because "rigid seeks rigid while
pliable seeks pliable". The leader with authentic leadership has a pliable
personality because of the complexity of such leadership. However,
followers still at lower levels of complexity will be more rigid in
personality. They will prefer a "less rigid" leader rather than a
decidedly "pliable leader". The best way for pliable leaders to interact
with rigid followers, is to make use of intermediate leaders. They will be
less pliable than the executive leader, but less rigid than the rigid
followers. They then act as the "umlomo"=mouthpiece=Y in the associativity
pattern X*Y*Z of wholeness. This is sometimes articulate as the principle
of cooperative leadership (co-leadership).
The last law to be mentioned here, is the Law of the Veracity of
Complexity (LVC). It entails that we cannot question, test, identify or
validate a complex system when using a probe with insufficient complexity
self. The data generated by the simple probe would have too little
complexity to act as information by which a sensible representation and
interpretation of the system's complexity can be obtained. This means that
the higher order values and virtues of the system will remain concealed.
Leaders should be very much aware of the LVC. The more complex followers
become, the more complex the probes should be with which the leader
fathoms the complexity of the followers. For example, opinion polls with a
number of formulated answers to each question can be used to establish
trends in a lower order of complexity. But that same poll cannot be used
to discover patterns in a higher order of complexity. Furthermore, because
LRC, LSC. LTC and LPC are involved, it is far better to establish higher
order trends through personal consultation. Thus leaders should encourage
dialogue with followers as far as possible.
There are also other laws of complexity, but the above are enough to make
us aware of such laws and explore them. These laws of complexity depend on
how we intertwine the 7Es and on which of them we focus in the end. In the
LRC the focus is on fruitfulness. In the LSC the focus is on otherness. In
the LTC the focus is on liveness. In the LPC the focus is on wholeness. In
the LVC the focus is on sureness.
With care and best wishes,
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.