Complexity

leadership Theory
ATTD-6200 Leadership
Development
By: John R. Turner

Complexity Leadership Theory

IntroducCon
Complexity Theory (CT)
Complexity Leadership Theory (CLT)
CLT CharacterisCcs
CorrelaCon
AggregaCon
AutocatalyCc Mechanism
Nonlinear Emergence
Advantages & Disadvantages
Conclusion

IntroducCon
In an IBM research of more than 1,500 CEOs
Howard Tollit idenCed as on of the
signicant ndings:
Complexity has overtaken change as the
main challenge facing CEOs across the globe
and more than half of UK & Irish CEOs doubt
their ability to manage it (the porporCons
even higher worldwide) (management today,
2010).

IntroducCon
Manville and Ober (2003) idenCed that
Were in a knowledge economy, but our
managerial and governance systems are stuck
in the Industrial Era. Its Cme for a whole new
model (as cited in Uhl-Bien, Marion, &
McKelvy, 2007, p. 298).

Complexity Theory
CLT is derived from CT
CT concerns the descripCon and predicCon of
systems that exhibit complex changing
behavior at the macroscopic level, emerging
from the collecCve acCons of many interacCng
components (Mitchell, 2009, p. 15).
The Brain; interacCng neurons
The WWW; Network of individual players

Complexity Theory
Complexity theorists are interested in
understanding how the interacCons of people
in organizaCons lead to the creaCon of
paberns of behavior, which in turn shape
organizaConal strategies, power structures,
and networks of relaConships (Ardichvili &
Manderscheid, 2008, p. 624).

Complexity Leadership Theory

CLT funcCons to create condiCons that
enable the interacCons through which the
behaviors and direcCon of organizaConal
systems emerge. Leaders provide control by
inuencing organizaConal behavior through
managing networks and interacCons (Marion
& Uhl-Bien, 2001, p. 406).

CharacterisCcs of CLT

CorrelaCon
AggregaCon
AutocatalyCc InteracCon
Nonlinear Emergence

CorrelaCon

Shared interest among agents (people)

Common beliefs
Similar world-views
Type of bonding process between agents
Fosters integraCon among agents
Forms aggregates (networks)

AggregaCon
Changes among agents
Changes are ogen caused by interacCons and
correlaCon between agents and networks of
agents
CT sees small changes, at the micro-level,
leading to large changes, at the macro-level
Self-organizing

AutocatalyCc InteracCon
The state where dierent units (agents or
departments) interact
InteracCon cannot be predetermined by
leadership
InteracCon must be enabled by leaders
Has a moderaCng eect
Self-generaCng system

Nonlinear Emergence
Nonlinear (inter- & intra-department, internal
and external of organizaCon)
Sudden and unpredictable change
InnovaCon
New technologies
Break into new markets

Structures evolve and reorganize

Similar to a network system

Bobom-up directed

Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages
Self-organizing
less managerial funcCons

Disadvantages
OrganizaConal Culture Change

leaders have to release control

follower have more responsibiliCes

HR Challenge
PotenCal for Chaos

Conclusion
Through Complex Leadership Theory Leaders
Should:
Create condiCons for innovaCon as opposed to
creaCng the innovaCon
Drop seeds of innovaCon rather than mandaCng
innovaCon plans
Create opportuniCes to interact rather than creaCng
isolated and controlled work cubicles
Tend to networks
Catalyze more than they control (Marion & Uhl-Bien,
2001).

References
Ardichvili, A. & Manderscheid (2008). Emerging pracCces in leadership
development: An introducCon. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 10(5), 619-631.
Management Today (2010, June 07). MT leadership visions: Capitalising on
complexity. Retrieved from
hbp://www.managemenboday.co.UK/news/1008266/mt-leadership-
visions-capitalising-complexity/
Marion, R. & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizaCons. The
Leadership Quarterly, 12, 389-418. Retrieved from hbp://
www.elsevier.com/wps/nd/journaldescripCon.cws_home/620221/
descripCon#descripCon
Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Uhl-Biewn, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership
theory: Shiging leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era.
The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298-318. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.
2007.04.002