See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260571691

The Future of Leadership: The New Complex Leaders' Skills

Article · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

4 3,700

1 author:

Elena Olmedo
Universidad de Sevilla
25 PUBLICATIONS   78 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Chaos theory and Nonlinear Economic dynamics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Elena Olmedo on 07 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Volume 1 • Number 1 • January-June 2012
GJAER © Academic Research Journals (India), pp. 79-90

The Future of Leadership:

The New Complex Leaders’ Skills

Elena Olmedo
Dep. Economia Aplicada I, Fac. Ciencias Economicas y Empresariales, Avda. Ramon y Cajal 1,
41018 Sevilla, Spain, (E-mail: olmedo@us.es)

ABSTRACT: In the last decade and within the framework of Complexity Science there have
been a change in Organizational Science and therefore lastly a change in Leadership Theory
too. Organizations are now considered as Complex Adaptive Systems, so traditional leaders
based on formal authority and prediction capacity are not well-suited in unstable,
changeable and uncertain organizations, characterized by interconnections, globalism and
emergence. In this work we try to outline the attributes of this new complex leader.
Keywords: Complexity, emergence, complex adaptive system, leader’s skills, complexity
paradigm.

INTRODUCTION
Complexity Leadership offers a new perspective for Leadership research within the
framework of Complexity Science. As Uhl-Bien et al. (2007) points out, traditional
leadership models are products of bureaucratic paradigms effective in physical
production based economies. But these models are not well-suited in a knowledge era,
characterized by learning, instability, innovation and globalism. These features are
characteristic of complex adaptive systems.
Complexity Science tries to study, describe and explain the behaviour of complex
adaptive systems. This is not a unique theory, but rather a multidisciplinary science,
a set of ideas, compounded by different interrelated blocks and there are three
inter-related building blocks of Complexity Science (Schneider and Somers, 2006):
nonlinear dynamics, chaos theory and adaptation/evolution.
Complexity Science is concerned with dynamic systems, complex and nonlinear,
characterized by a great number of interacting elements each other and with
environment in a complex way, which evolve through time creating new emergent
properties and with sensibility to initial conditions, so their evolution is hardly
predictable, but show orderly patterns. These are basically the characteristics of
complex adaptive systems (CAS) (Plowman et al., 2007). Although developed in
80 Global Journal of Accounting and Economic Research

natural sciences, it has been applied in organizational sphere (Levy, 1994; McKelvey,
1997; Lewin et al., 1998; Anderson, 1999; Pascale et al., 2000; McMillan, 2004; Burnes,
2005; McMillan and Carlisle, 2007 and Teisman and Klijn, 2008). Kupers (2000) define
CAS as systems of semi-independet agents that interact more o less randomly to
influence each other’s behaviour. And Surie and Hazy (2006) consider four elements of
CAS as relevant for organizational theorists:
• Outcomes emerge from actions of agents at a lower level of aggregation.
• Self-organization in the system is emergent as a result of the interconnections
between agents.
• The emergent processes and structures are dynamic.
• CAS evolve over time.
Complexity Theory considers organizations are CAS composed by a diversity of
agents who interacts one another, leading to spontaneous emergence of novel
behaviour (Marion and Uhl-Bien, 2003). So leadership requires a shift from traditional
models of control-leaders to ‘complex leadership’ models.
In the last decade some authors have analyzed the necessity of a new Leadership
Theory, what is called Complexity Leadership Theory (Marion and Uhl-Bien, 2001 and
2003; Schneider, 2002; Lichtenstein et al., 2006; Schneider and Sommers, 2006; Uhl-Bien
et al., 2007; Plowman et al., 2007 and Boal and Schultz, 2007; Osborn and Hunt, 2007
among others) but none have deepened in the relation between Complexity
Leadership and Complex Paradigm and only Schneider (2002) have mentioned the
new leader’s attributes.
In this work we are going to first analyse the connections between the shift of
scientific paradigm, the shift of management paradigm and the Complex Leadership
Theory. Second, we are going to establish the main complex-leader skills and third, we
are going to establish the changes of the role of the leader.
THE SHIFT OF SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM

Simplification versus Complexity Paradigm

Since the 18th Century, the Newtonian paradigm has been predominant, characterize
by determinism, supported by Cartesian reductionism. This determinism constitutes
the base of the modern scientific method in which any system could be studied
analyzing its constituting parts. The Principle of Strong Causation state that the same
causes result in the same consequences, so the precise description, comprehension and
knowledge of any system implies directly the capacity of predicting the past and the
future evolution of the system with absolute accuracy.
But since the perfect knowledge is no possible, the Principle of Strong Causation is
replaced by the Principle of Weak Causation, that states that approximately the same
causes result in approximately the same consequences. This Principle justifies
The Future of Leadership: The New Complex Leaders’ Skills 81

prediction in statistical terms. The deterministic laws are replaced by statistical laws,
and this new paradigm is called the Simplification or Statistical Paradigm. These two
paradigms coexisted and were applied to different fields.
But these principles have been questioned since the beginning of the 20 th Century,
due to the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. This Principle states that the
independence between the observer and the observed was not real. Later, the Chaos
Theory focused on linearity because approximately the same causes not necessarily
origins approximately the same consequences. The property of sensitivity of initial
conditions, present in some nonlinear systems, amplifies insignificant divergences in
the initial conditions in an exponential way. These two Principles conclude that
accurate descriptions do not guarantee accurate predictions. So a new concept of
complexity has arisen, which shows that ‘complex’ is qualitatively different from
‘simple’, giving rise to a new Paradigm, in which hard and soft sciences work together
with concepts such as feedback, adaptability… initially more ‘suitable’ for the last
ones. This Complex Paradigm breaks with the determinism-randomness duality, and
is not opposed to the Newtonian Paradigm, but completes it with new concepts
(Prigogine, 1993 and 1997). The Complexity Theory is not unified and homogeneous,
as stated in the introduction, but there is a broad agreement on the characteristics of the
phenomena studied. Particularly, these phenomena (see Teisman and Klijn, 2008) are
more ‘dynamic’ than the traditional approach assumed, evolve endogenously, are not
isolated and are compound by self-organizing agents which interacts one to another to
produce new higher-lever patterns, emergent behaviours and structures.
So the key concepts of this Complexity Science are opposite to those of
Simplification Paradigm, and both are exposed together in Table 1.

Table 1
Characteristic Figures of Simplification Paradigm versus Complexity Paradigm
Simplification Paradigm Complexity Paradigm
Independence between observer and Dependence between observer and
observed observed
Closed systems: systems are considered Open systems and connectivity: systems
isolated structures are considered structures related to their
environments
Equilibrium: systems are considered Disequilibrium: systems move between
structures in equilibrium order and disorder
Linearity: the whole is approximately Nonlinearity: the whole is more than the
the sum of constituting parts sum of their parts
Energy conservation, as a consequence of Energy dissipation during relations with
being closed systems environment
Reversibility: time is exogenous and Irreversibility: time is endogenous and
external to the system internal to the system
Order Disorder
82 Global Journal of Accounting and Economic Research

Traditional versus Complex Management

Traditional organization management, developed during the Industrial Era, has been
influenced by Newtonian Deterministic Paradigm, which is directed by three key
assumptions: positivism (reality is objective, not subjective), linearity (linear relations
between cause and effect, so results are predictable) and reductionism (knowledge is
acquired using senses). Traditional organization management is focused in stability,
prediction and control. In fact, business companies that emerged with Industrialization
were organized according to the above mentioned guidelines. The Machine Metaphor
was employed to characterize organizations as great machines and their workers as
pieces that could be directed, controlled or, merely, replaced. So companies were
considered isolated entities that functioned in a linear and predictable manner.
Changes are predictable and stability is something to achieved, so there is risk
aversion and therefore organizations are rigid, centralized and hierarquical with
values generated from top to bottom and external control.
The recognition of the presence of uncertainty replaces linear deterministic
relations by approximately linear ones. Prediction is possible increasing information
through learning. Organizations are less hierarquical but based on horizontal nets,
with values from bottom to top and self-control.
Knowledge Era is characterized by globalization, technology and deregulation.
Firms have to interconnect one each other and need to be flexible and adaptable. This
new era influence organizations (Barkema et al, 2002). This new management is
influenced by the lens of Complexity where forecasting is not possible. Nonlinearity
and sensibility to initial conditions break the Principle of Weak Causation, so
increasing information do not guarantee the determination of cause-effect
relationships. Environment is complex, so organizations should be complex to
function effectively. Traditional organization approaches try to make the opposite,
seeking simplicity and stability, fixing control, boundaries and laws. These approaches
do not represent actual reality so this requires a change in organizational thinking
(Cilliers, 2001). Organizations are characterized by disequilibrium, nonlinearity and
emergence (CAS systems). Management must be creative and innovative: the future is
no longer anticipated, it is now created. The key concepts now are chaos, conflict,
instability, complex learning and dialogue to favour spontaneous self-organization.
Values can be both ascending or descending. So (Kupers, 2000) Complexity offers a
valid mental model for organizations to survive.

Towards a Complexity Leadership Theory

Before Complexity Theory, there exists different leadership theories, but all of them
focus on leader’s individual characteristics. We can basically distinguish traditional
supervisory leadership from strategic leadership (Boal, Schultz, 2007). The last one
consider the organization as a whole, visualizing its future and developing the
organization along time but the first one look for the implementation of this ideas in
The Future of Leadership: The New Complex Leaders’ Skills 83

the organization. But all these theories considered leaders with some innate capacity
to predict future, eliminating the organizational ambiguity and therefore elaborate
successful planning to achieve desired results (Lichtenstein et al., 2006; Surie and
Hazy, 2006; Plowman et al., 2007), or to set a vision for the future of the organization
and elaborate decisions or activities necessary to get this vision. In traditional
management theory, organizations seek order and stability, and this kind of leaders
is expected to achieve stability by the understanding of linear cause-effect relations
and the reduction of complexity. So we can speak about leaders as controllers
because they can direct the organization and control its future evolution. Goals are
rationally conceived and leadership theories analyze how leaders can influence
other to achieved desired objectives within formal hierarchical organizations. But
this vision seems a contradiction with the vision of organizations as CAS in
Knowledge Era.
Complexity Leadership Theory (Uhl-Bien et al, 2007) is a framework for leadership
that enables the learning, creative, and adaptive capacity of complex adaptive systems in
knowledge-producing organizations or organizational units. Complexity leadership has
been introduced into organizational leadership by Marion and Uhl-Bien (2001).
Leaders have to face complex reality so there are no linear cause-effect relations to
predict and planning is merely impossible so looks for a new perspective, taking into
account the importance of interactions and emergent properties. Strategic complex
leadership involves creating the conditions that enable unspecified future states rather
visualizes this future and direct the whole organization to it. Leaders cannot control
the future. So the leaders as controllers are substituted by the leaders as enablers
(Plowman et al., 2007).
One more step. Complexity leadership redirects emphasis from individual leaders
to leadership as an organizational phenomenon. Most leadership research lies on
formal and bureaucratic roles, identified with managerial working (Bedeian and Hunt,
2006), Complexity leadership address leadership that occurs throughout the
organization (Schneider, 2002). Leadership is an emergent event that lies in an
interactive dynamic that arises in organization in the systemic interactions between
heterogeneous agents. So organization creates leadership better than leader directs the
system. Individuals become leaders when they favour the emergent behaviour to face
complex problems in organizations, and different people can be leaders in different
situations because complex leadership is not always in a formal position. So the key
concept is the leadership process instead of the leader him/herself. The frontiers
between leader and follower are therefore blurred. As Lichtenstein points out, a
key contribution of the Complexity Leadership Theory is that provides an integrative
theoretical framework for explaining interactive dynamics, a phenomenon
acknowledged by a variety of emerging leadership theories (shared leadership (Pearce
and Conger, 2003), collective leadership (Weick and Roberts, 1993), distributed
leadership (Gronn, 2002) and relational leadership (Drath, 2001).
84 Global Journal of Accounting and Economic Research

LEADER SKILLS IN COMPLEX ORGANIZATIONS

Boal and Schultz makes a brilliant analysis of the behaviour of strategic leaders in
CAS. What we point out in this work is that, within the Complexity framework,
leaders in the traditional sense do not directly make things, but better enable the right
conditions to favour the emergent process. Kupers (2000) enumerate some ingredients
for a leader to survive in complex organizations but, does it suppose a change in
leaders’ skills?
Traditional organizations are deterministic and stable, avoiding surprise, risk and
emergence. Prediction is possible, so leaders should actively create conditions to reach
the future state desired through planning, directing, organizing and controlling
(Marion and Uhl-Bien, 2001 and Wheatley, 1999). These traditional skills have been
fundamental to the economic progress achieved throughout the twentieth century.
However, in a complex and ever-changing world as the one we live in, this
organizational abilities, although still useful, are becoming inadequate for present-day
companies. Nowadays, our environment is not considered either stable or predictable.
It is uncertain and ever-changing, and this makes the task of planning, organizing or
managing a difficult one. This would explain the obsolescence of the before mentioned
skills and would favour the new ones (see Radovic, 2008), what we named strategic
complex skills (Shelton and Darling, 2003, Olmedo et al., 2007; Kiel, 1994; Nieto de
Alba, 2000 and Stacey, 1995). The most important new skills would be complex seeing,
complex thinking, complex feeling, complex knowing, complex acting, complex
trusting and complex being with different implications in leadership (see Table 2).

Complex Seeing
It is based on the premise that reality is inherently subjective. In this way, individual
experience depends to a great extent on one’s own mental scheme. If leaders are not
conscious about this situation they run the risk of going into a repetitive cycle and they
will continue to perceive reality as they always have, from their individual
perceptions. The complex vision ability allows leaders to be more conscious about its
own intentions, so as to learn to know how to change them, modifying its own
perception of the world and engaging in a learning process. It is important that leaders
take into account all agents involved in the process so as to being able to offer different
solutions from the ones that its own perception is likely to produce. This complex
seeing will give the capacity of sensegiving about the possible behaviour or structure
born in the interacting process.

Complex Thinking
Sometimes the world functions in an apparently illogical and paradoxical manner. It
is, therefore, important that managers learn to think this way, a way that can be said
to be a complex one: the decision making process should not be merely linear or
logical but non-linear or complex. It is important that people learn how to think in a
The Future of Leadership: The New Complex Leaders’ Skills 85

creative way, to be in disagreement, since organizations need this creative energy

generated by these differences in order to progress. So leaders will generate
disequilibrium and controversy.

Complex Feeling
This skill is based on the premise that humans are made of the same energy than the
rest of the universe so positive emotions increase energy, while negative emotions
reduce energy. Thus it is important that leaders are able to keep high levels of energy,
focusing on positive aspects of each situation and, in summary, behave in a vital
manner. It’s important for system self-organize the promotion of emotional
interactions.

Complex Knowing
The need to acquire this skill comes from the premise that the universe emerges from
an underlying energy field. This energy justifies the achievement of a faster decision-
making process in novel situations based on more personal confidence and better
perception abilities. People interconnected should share the same language and
symbols and follow simple rules.

Complex Acting
This skill is based on the acknowledgement of the whole. Complex action is the ability
to act in accordance with not only the benefit of the individual, but with the benefit of
the wholeness. Leaders that follow this model of complex action will take decisions
that can be regarded as responsible and ethical, being conscious of the fact that when
they take a good decision this increases the probability that others would act in
accordance with it, increasing the common welfare.

Complex Trusting
It is based on the principles of the Theory of Chaos and Complexity, which manifests
the presence of chaos in the natural processes. Ideas about forecasting and control are
abandoned in order to learn how to take advantage of the creative potential of chaos.
In this way, flexibility increases in the organization as well as within individual
behaviour of the components.

Complex Being
This skill is related to the importance of the interactions within the nature of the
universe. Complex being is the ability to be open to a process of continuous learning
based on relationships, keeping in mind that all relationships represent an
opportunity to learn. Hence, it is important to have communication and
comprehension within the company and in all directions –vertically as well as
horizontally—, in order to eliminate interdepartmental frontiers and confinement.
86 Global Journal of Accounting and Economic Research

Table 2
Managerial Skills
Leader skill Organizational effect Leadership role
Complex Seeing Communication in all levels and Self-organization through
directions are so importance, to sensemaking
count on diverse opinions derived from
different forms to see the same reality
Complex Thinking Discussion and diversity let the system Favour disequilibrium,
self-organize discussion, conflict and
controversy.
Complex Feeling Amiable environment are important Irradiate positive energy
to stimulate creation and learning Promotion of emotional
interconnections
Complex Knowing Self-organization and emergent Creation of correlation
properties lead to cope with through rules, language and
complexity, leaving ideas such as symbols
control and forecasting
Complex Acting All is interconnected, so ethical decisions Favour ethical decisions
will increase common welfare and produce
benefits to the organization
Complex Trusting Ubiquity of uncertainty Increase flexibility, allow
experiments and novelty
Complex Being Relationships represent an opportunity Favour communications
to learn along organizationSupport
collective action

How can adapt the complex leaders these skills to manage organizations? They
should take into account that reality is subjective. Because of that, discussions and
diversity are so importance, to count on diverse opinions derived from different forms
to see the same reality. They should learn to think in a complex way, working with
paradoxical concepts, diversity and discussions to let the systems self-organize. It is
important to radiate positive emotions, to create amiable environment so as to
stimulate creation and learning. Intuition, communication and reflexion are key
concepts to reach organization learning. So leaders should trust in self-organization
and emergence, leaving ideas such as control and forecasting, and taking into account
the possibility of unexpected changes considered as new opportunities. Leaders
should be able to pose new scenarios and problems in an active manner so as to favour
learning and adaptation. And last, leaders should be able to think about a whole: all is
interconnected, so ethical decisions will increase common welfare and produce
benefits to the organization.
So leaders should encourage novelty, disrupting existing patterns and promote
nonlinear and emotional connections inside simple rules to favour new emergent
behaviours. And they should be able to recognize these emergent behaviours and
giving meaning to them (Lichtenstein and Plowman, 2009).
The Future of Leadership: The New Complex Leaders’ Skills 87

CHANGES IN THE ROLE OF THE LEADER

In real world, leaders has to cope with complexity, in a thin line between order and
disorder or, in other words, at the edge of the chaos. This implies a reinterpretation of
traditional leadership principles (Paarlberg and Bielefeld, 2009).

Promote Emergence and Organizational Learning Following Simple Rules

Traditionally, the role of leaders was to observe, establish and understand the cause-
effect relationships to get the control (Stacey, Griffin and Shaw, 2000). Because changes
are forecastable, leaders should be able to anticipate them, and react properly in what
is called a priori adaptation. So leaders should actively direct the organization to its
goals, controlling its evolution through time. Traditional leaders seek for stability,
equilibrium and control to reduce complexity, with decisions devised at the top or
organization, based on logical and analytical instruments with experts’ assessment
and formal teams directly controlled by senior management. But if prediction is
impossible, what is now the role of leaders? From a complexity view, leaders should
try to work with complexity instead of trying to reduce it. Success implies to take
advantage of disequilibrium, change and innovation. It is important the creation of
environments to favour emergence and organizational learning and to use methods
that can help to generate ideas, acquiring skills, increasing levels of interaction,
communication and knowledge diffusion. Decisions are not taken only by leaders, but
devised at all levels of organizations, inside formal or informal teams, using analytical
and intuitive tools (see Yukl, 2009). Leaders do not anticipate the future to achieved
fixed objectives anymore, but better to favour emergent processes to generate
adaption mechanisms to realize possibly changeable objectives. Complex leadership
tries to specify a few simple rules to guide improvisational actions to take advantage
of market opportunities depending of the new scenario. The decision making
should be widely distributed to improve adaptation and improvisation. And this
participation should be real and not merely superficial.

Promote of Adaptive Structures

Traditional leaders try to control, establishing precise and unchanging plans,
identifying the sources of competitive advantage. But this is only possible if
environment, relations and sources of competitive advantage are essentially static. In
a complex environment the identification of processes to develop better adaptive
system designs is preeminent. Strategic flexibility should substitute strategic rigidity
in complex environment. The organization should be able to re-define its position,
relations and sources of competitive advantage if is necessary. It is important the
endogenization of industry structures. These structures are fixed in traditional view.
But in a complex organization, these structures could be considered as tools to create
or to promote ‘strange attractors’, in other words, survivable structures in changing
environment.
88 Global Journal of Accounting and Economic Research

CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we locate the Complexity Leadership Theory inside the Complexity
Paradigm, relating it with the new consideration of organizations as CAS. The
traditional leadership theories collide with this new vision, where stability, prediction
and control are not possible. Leadership moves from individual to colectivity,
meaning an emergent event resulting from interconnections inside and outside
organizations. Complexity Leadership supposes the creation of conditions necessary
to favour emergence, adaptability and learning in organizations rather than direct the
whole organization to get its objective.
The role of complex leaders is to design adaptive organizational systems able to
cope with complex environment, to redefine its position, structure and competitive
advantage following a few simple rules. This does not imply a decentralized
organization structure but rather the existence of self-managing processes which are
guided by the strategic directions and guidelines define by the leaders. The role of a
complex leader is to assure proper conditions to let the system self-organize
productively to react to complexity. In order to make this possible leader it must have
certain qualities that basically are: complex seeing, complex thinking, complex feeling,
complex knowing, complex acting, complex trusting and complex being. Complex
leaders should encourage novelty and disequilibrium and the promotion of emotional
connections with common language and symbols inside simple rules to favour new
emergent behaviours. And they should be able to recognize these emergent
behaviours and giving meaning to them.
References
Anderson, P. (1999), Complexity Theory and Organization Science. Organization Science, 10, 3,
216-232
Barkema, H. G., Baum, J.A.C. and Mannix, E. A. (2002), Management challenges in a new time.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 5: 916-930
Bedeian, A. G. and Hunt, J. G. (2006), Academic amnesia and vestigial assumptions of our
forefathers. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 2, 190-205
Boal, K.B. and Schultz, P.L. (2007), Story telling, time, and evolution: The role of strategic
leadership in complex adaptive systems. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 411-428.
Burnes, B. (2005), Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal of
Management Reviews 7, 2: 73-90
Cilliers, P. (2001), Boundaries, hierarchies and networks in complex systems. International
Journal of Innovation Management, 5, 135-147.
Drath, W. 2001. The Deep Blue Sea: rethinking the source of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass &
Center for Creative Leadership.
Gronn, P. (2002), Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13,
423-451
Kiel, G.E. (1994), Managing chaos and complexity in government: a new paradigm for managing
change, innovation and organizational renewal, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers
The Future of Leadership: The New Complex Leaders’ Skills 89

Kupers, R. (2000), What organizational leaders should know about the new science of
complexity. Complexity, 6, 1, 14-19
Levy, D. (1994), Chaos Theory and strategy: theory, application and managerial implications.
Strategic Management Journal, 15, 4: 167-178.
Lewin, R., Parket, T. and Regine, B. (1998), Complexity theory and the organization: beyond the
metaphor. Complexity, 3, 4: 36-40
Lichtenstein, B.B. and Plowman, D.A. (2009), The leadership of emergence: A complex systems
leadership theory of emergence at successive organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly
20, 4: 617-630.
Lichtenstein, B.B., Uh-.Bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Orton, J.D. and Schreiber, C. (2006),
Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive
systems. Emergence: Complexity and Organization 8, 4: 2-12
Marion, R. and Uhl-Bien, M. (2001), Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership
Quarterly, 12, 4: 389-418.
Marion, R. and Uhl-Bien, M. (2003), Complexity Theory and Al-Qaeda: examining complex
leadership. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 5, 1: 54-76
McKelvey, B. (1997), Quasi-natural organization science. Organization Science, 8, 4: 352-380
McMillan, E. (2004), Complexity, organizations and change. London, UK: Routledge
McMillan, E and Carlisle, Y. (2007), Strategy as Order Emerging from Chaos: A Public Sector
Experience. Long Range Planning 40 6: 574-593
Nieto de Alba, U. (2000), Gestión y control en la nueva economía. Innovación, integración y
globalización, Madrid: Editorial Centro de Estudios Ramón Areces.
Olmedo, E., Mateos, R. and Valderas, J.M. (2007), From Linearity to Complexity in Economics
and Management in F. Capra, A. Juarrero, P. Sotolongo and J.van Udden eds.: Reframing
Complexity: perspectives from the North to the South. ISCE Publishing, Mansfield MA.
Osborn, R.N. and Hunt, J.G. (2007), Leadership and the choice of order: complexity and
hierarchical perspectives near the edge of chaos. The Leadership Quarterly 18, 4: 319-340
Paarlberg, L.E. and Bielefeld, W. (2009), Complexity Science. An alternative framework for
understanding Strategic Management in public serving organizations. International Public
Management Journal, 12 2: 236-260
Pascale, R.T., Millemann, M. and Gioja, L. (2000), Surfing the edge of chaos. London, UK: TEXERE
Publishing.
Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (2003), Shared leadership: reframing the hows and whys of leadership.
Thousand Oakds: Sage
Plowman, D.A., Solansky, S., Beck, T.E., Baker, L., Kulkarni, M. and Travis, D.V. (2007), The role
of leadership in emergent, self-organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 4: 341-356.
Radovic, M. (2008), Managing the organizational change and culture in the age of globalization.
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 9, 1: 3-11
Shelton, C. and Darling, F.R. (2003), From Theory to Practice: Using New Science Concepts to
Create Learning Organizations. The Learning Organization, 10, 6, 353-360
Schneider, M. (2002), A stakeholder of Organizational Leadership. Organization Science, 13, 2,
209-220.
 90 Global Journal of Accounting and Economic Research

Schneider, M. and Somers, M. (2006), Organizations as Complex Adaptive Systems:

Implications of Complexity Theory for Leadership Research. The Leadership Quarterly, 17,
351-365.
Stacey, R.D. (1993), Strategy as Order Emerging from Chaos. Long Range Planning, 26, 10-17.
Stacey, R.D. Griffin, D. and Shaw, P. (2000), Complexity and Management. Fad or Radical Challenge
to System Thinking, Routledge, London.
Surie, G. and Hazy, J. K. (2006), Generative leadership: Nurturing Innovation in Complex
Systems. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 8, 4: 13-26.
Teisman, G.R. and Klijn, E.-H. (2008), Complexity Theory and Public Management. An
Introduction. Public Management Review, 10, 3, 287-297.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R. and McKelvey, B. (2007), Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting
Leadership from the Industrial Age to the Knowledge Era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 4,
298-318.
Weick, K.E. and Roberts, K.H. (1993), Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on
flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 3, 357-381
Yukl, G. (2009), Leading Organizational Learning: Reflections on Theory and Research. The
Leadership Quarterly, 20, 1, 49-53.
Wheatley, M. (1999), Leadership and the New Science. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.

View publication stats