Seminar 1 ORGANIZING IN THE MIST: A CASE STUDY IN LEADERSHIP AND COMPLEXITY

Organizations can be understood as complex adaptive systems, which are argued to be characterized by
the spontaneous emergence of novelty. In contrast, theory of complex responsive process sees the
natural tendency of a complex social system is the creation of equilibrium rather than novelty. They
argue that an important factor in organizations is the attention that must be paid to the psychological
and social defenses to anxiety provoked by organizational change. This article attempts to contrast
these two perspectives and demonstrates through a case study how the theory of complex responsive
processes may offer the potential to understand episodes of emergent and potentially creative, forms of
organization and leadership.

In the case study, a group of approximately 20 participants are required to form a temporary
organization to complete a treasure hunt task. Although it is observed that success is generally
achieved where a clear hierarchy emerges and leadership, planning and control result in the effective
deployment of group member resources, this particular group described in the article found the
treasure with neither a clear hierarchy nor a consistent leadership team. As strange as it is, their success,
however, can be explained in terms of the following 3 aspects:

Self-organizing processes of communicating

The large group was first sub-divided into 4 smaller groups, at which point it appeared that
communication throughout the whole group was likely to be problematic. Paradoxically, however, this
may have contributed to the emergence of a culture of free-flowing conversation, which one sub-group
described as a culture that contained both competition and collaboration. The pattern of relationships
emerged from uncertain and indeterminate power relations.

Having split into four sub-groups to work on all aspects of the exercise briefing, all were fully conversant
with the whole task when the group eventually came together. Each sub-group had taken time to
become familiar with, and rehearse, important themes arising from the task. Their conversations were
rich with these as well as with additional themes that each individual brought from their diverse
experience. Stacey (2003) argues that it is themes not people that organizes conversations,
communication and power relations. These themes combined and re-formed in complex responsive
processes as their conversations with one another developed

In the interplay, it is possible to understand organization as a pattern of interdependence, I which power

relations form and develop. The consequence of interdependence is that the behavior of every
individual is constrained by the demands of others. Self-organizing processes of communicating enact
webs of power relations, which, depending upon various factors such as the good enough holding of
anxiety and the presence of sufficient diversity, will lead either to novel forms of organizing, in free-
flowing conversation, or to stability, in stuck or repetitive conversation.

Leadership as Participation

Whilst there were clearly those who were more prominent as leadership, an overriding characteristic of
the group was one of wide participation in decision making and leadership. Leadership was exercised by
participants who were embroiled in the moment by moment dynamics of the organization whilst,
simultaneously, able to stand back, reflect upon and then question or challenge the emerging process.
The advantage of leadership by participants over the objective observer model is that it avoid creating
a them and us situation. On the other hand, however, in the chaos, the lack of a clear leadership
structure can breed resentment and frustration when potential leaders have less of a voice. In the case,
the desire to lead of potential leaders was held in a tantalizing balance with a fear of rejection or
criticism by the rest of the group. This constraint somehow led to a delicate balance in power relation,
which contributes to the movement of reluctant leadership around the group.

Good enough holding of anxiety and diversity

Free flowing conversation, a pre-requisite for emergent novelty, requires organizational dynamics to be
characterized by the good enough holding of anxiety. Understandably, people become anxious in
situations of change, particularly those that become chaotic. In the latter stage of the exercise, the
group was lacking key information and HQ was struggling to determine what should be done next.
Typically, the uncertainty and confusion in the management team leads to the fragmentation of the
organization: sub-groups lack direction, unclear what should be done. Ultimately organizational failure
ensues as sub-groups become passive and disengaged, merely waiting for time to run out. In this case
study, however, HQ arranged to meet up with the two sub-groups nearest to them and the hierarchy
was, temporarily, dissolved. The increasing level of confusion was leading to heightened levels of
anxiety. However, the organizational dynamics are characterized by a good enough holding of anxiety,
built on the foundation of trusting interactions.

In addition to a good enough holding of anxiety, diversity is another condition for novel self-
organization. According to Stacey, if an organization is a pattern of talk (relational constraints) then an
organization changes only in so far as its conversational life (power relations) evolves Creativity,
novelty, and innovation are all the emergence of new patterns of talk ad patterns of power relations
(2003, p.363). Thus, diversity should not only be understood in terms of individual differences but also
differences in organizing themes and the contribution that these make to self-organizing patterns of
communicating.

The social psychology of change means that the anxiety provoked by the unfolding processes of
organizing will have an impact. Stacey (2003, p. 379) argues that the good enough holding of anxiety is
an essential condition for free-flowing conversation, and therefore for creative or novel forms of
organizing. Free flowing conversation allowed for a diverse range of sometimes conflicting themes to
emerge. For example, splitting into sub-groups is efficient and coming together helps creative problem
solving; hierarchical leadership with genuine decision-making authority is valuable for coordination and
the dissolution of positions of leadership may allow the right leader to emerge in the moment. Most
significantly, however, it is apparent that a diversity of ideas was allowed to surface in this organization
because a multiplicity of leaders was able, at different times, to participate in influencing the free-
flowing conversation within the group. This was the basis of the creativity that emerged in self-
organizing processes of communicating.

REFLECTION

After reading this article, I now can determine what I have been experiencing when working in group
with my teammates for the last three years at IU. Me and my friends have formed a self-organization. In
this organization, there is no clear leader. We hardly ever have a team meeting. Yet, we manage to
complete all assignments on time and get 80+ scores for all assignments and regularly get compliments
or get our works posted for the whole class.
The key for us is we have no permanent leader, whoever has more knowledge about the assignment will
lead the team either by self-nominated or voted by other members. For example, in our team, I have to
work full-time, so I cannot attend classes and also self-studying works better for me than in-class
studying. My friend, Chau, however, prefers studying in-class and always attends lectures. So, we voted
for her to lead the team because she will know what the requirements are for all assignments as well as
the lecturers preference for doing it. Thus, Chau would assign task for us and we would work
independently. Similar to the group described in the article, important themes arise as each of us as gets
familiar with our task. These themes would then initiate discussion, in which other members with
different piece of info (of task) and with a fresher perspective to my task can question my answer.

However, unlike the group studied, we never experience power struggle or anxiety from fear of
rejection or criticism by the rest of the team. This is due to the fact that our team operates based on
empathy and common goal. The goal is not to lead but to get the assignments done excellently while
taking into account of each other circumstances (for instance, my working full-time). So, everyone takes
criticism constructively and ready to withdraw from leadership if they think they are not fit and ready to
help if a member cannot finish their task for valid reason. This is why I disagree with the author when
he interprets Tims act of giving the leadership back to Graham as a demonstration for integrity and
generosity. I think it was rather an act for common good, and thus, the desire to lead of people in the
study group is influenced by their perceived ability to lead the group to the goal rather than constrained
by their fear of rejection or criticism.