A633.5.3.RB - Reflection on Chaos

The chaos game was very surprising, to say the least. Initially when I thought about it as the facilitator was explaining the instructions I couldn’t have imagined that the team would have been able to do it any faster than 5 minutes. The instructions were simple, but given the variables and how many people there were, it seemed impossible to do in the first place, much less in under a minute.

What this means to me and the impact that it has on my understanding of the chaos theory is that if teams are given clear instructions and parameters to work within, the outcome of their work may be quite surprising. However, I can relate to this chaos game and the results of it, as the manager that I have now leads using a very simple approach: educates, sets clear expectations, and holds people accountable. The educating and setting clear expectations part of his leadership approach is very similar to the facilitator giving the instructions to the members of his team and setting the parameters by which the game will be played. What makes this even more interesting is that my peers are given instructions and expectations, just as I am, but we are all driving business metrics and focus areas while working with one another and staying consistent with how we lead our teams. Much like the players in the chaos game have to adjust when their focus areas adjust, we also have to do the same with the multitude of variables in the workplace. The funny thing is we manage to work on our own, meet the goals, and do it in a timely manner without someone taking the role as the lead.

The implications that this game has on strategy is that is forces leaders to take a different approach with the way that we lead our teams, especially in today’s workplace where the dynamics are much different than they were just a decade ago. It also means that strategy on the lower levels of organization has been proven to be successful, and if left to figure something out, employees will tailor the strategy that they have based on the parameters and instructions given to them from their leadership. I am positive that not everyone in the game had the same strategy in mind when starting, and some of them took a different approach to ensure that they met the goals while following the parameters and instructions. I think that is why organizations are performing at a higher level now, because leaders are acting more as coaches and facilitators, rather than micro managing every little process and move made by an employee. The authoritative and direct approach to leadership is still present in today’s workplace, but the more cross-functional and flat organizations are slowly taking over. 

A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Leadership is becoming more and more dynamic every day. In today’s workforce the role of a leader is much different than it was a few decades ago, mainly because of the changes organizations are going through to stay competitive and keep employees performing at a very high level. I believe the three biggest contributors of this revolve around change: change in organizational culture, change in industry competition, and change in the workforce.

Employees expect organizations to support them in different capacities today, and different motivational factors have to be used to keep employees performing. The change in the makeup and structure of the workforce, along with the need to support a healthy culture are helping to drive this change in leadership. Organizations are becoming diverse enough that leaders have to formulate strategies to satisfy the needs and wants of their employees while meeting the goals of the company. In addition, several industries are becoming competitive, forcing additional responsibilities and unique roles on leaders today. This places leaders in positions of constant change within their organizations. My organization is certainly going through changes like these right now. The retail industry is highly competitive, so leaders are being tasked to take on larger, more integrated teams, along with the entire organization going through constant change in processes and practices.

Leadership dynamics have to be altered to help facilitate and promote change within organizations. This change could come in the form of structure and leadership responsibilities, or it could be in the form of compliance practices for the USDA. Either way, leaders in any capacity will be tasked to help lead employees through this change, from the bottom up. In addition, the ideas generated to drive the strategies needed to help organizations stay competitive will come from lower level employees. This is because they have the continuity, consistency, and knowledge to drive the business forward, and do it in a time frame that the organization needs.

Strategy is going to be absolutely necessary for this change. For example, a change within an organization could represent something significant for employees, so the strategy needed for communication, processes, involvement, etc., could be different than what is was in the past, based on employee culture, tenure, and acceptance level. The ideas could be generated from the bottom level of the organizations, but the strategy behind the ideas has to come from the leadership level to be successful.

A633.2.3.RB - Butterfly Effect

The butterfly effect is something that has fascinated me since I started in a leadership position several years ago. I remember making a small change to my daily routine and seeing the impact it had on employee satisfaction and organizational culture. Because of this, I am a firm believer in testing small changes in the workplace to prove their overall effectiveness.

In a recent experience with the butterfly effect, the team that I work within posted a tracker on one of the organization’s folders to hold managers accountable to certain routines and practices. This was never posted to a public place before, and before it was posted the building was being scored “red” in several areas of operational effectiveness. Since posting it to a place where the results are pronounced and made public, performance has improved by 8% in the last 8 weeks and engagement and performance with the building’s compliance practices have improved by 5%. The small change will continue to help in these areas and also help with accountability.

In another recent example our team initiated a new process that would help with quality within our building. It represented a small change for those actually doing it, taking an extra 15-30 minutes of their time throughout the day to help complete the process with the help of someone else from another department. This small change has helped decrease the amount of defects per million by 9% in just one week, without the team members ever really thinking about the small amount of extra work put into it every day.

The complexity theory represents competition and progress within my organization. For example, the routines we build, the processes we establish, the culture we maintain, and the reputation that we have all stems from the complexity theory. What appears to be chaos and complexity to some is actually everything the company wants it to be with order to it. This complexity is what helps with strategy within our organization as it forces us to take necessary steps to stay competitive. The complexity of our industry and the customers we cater to causes us to think outside the box to maintain our success. If we use the complexity theory as a gauge of how to drive performance, we will constantly be looking to evolve and change into something better, through culture, processes, practices, and strategy.