A633.3.3.RB - Complex Adaptive Systems

 Complex Adaptive System

 

     Morning Star and St Luke has this image of a company that has clear processes for the people and for the policies, technology systems that are flexible, yet solid in their development processes (Oblolensky, 2014). This vision of an organizational structure is called a Complex Adaptive System (CAS). Within this type of organization, employees will have increased responsibility with less management, which will give the employees the freedoms to collaborate, communicate, and be more innovated since creativity is in encouraged.

     One company that embodies these characteristics would be REI, the outdoor clothing and gear store. REI attributes the success of their company to their “employees giving life to their purpose” (Patel, 2015, par. 8). REI allows their employees to test out the gear and even have a chance to win some through challenges. The leaders of REI hold regular meetings where employees have the chance to get questions answered and to voice their opinions and ideas. The management listens and then address the concerns.

     While the company I work for does have some aspects this idea, there is a lot of room for improvement. Weekly meetings are held so that everyone has a pulse on the organization. It would appear that it was originally created for the purpose of collaborating and sharing ideas, but has somehow fallen short of that expectation. Most often the purpose and the objectives seem to get lost in the details of the day. There is also a very segregated mentality, even though the office space is an open concept. People seem to take on a “that’s not my area” mentality when trying to collaborate about an issue.

     If this company is going to move forward, the first that needs to happen is to get everyone on the same page and clear about what the main objective is and then get them talking about what they can do to help get us going in that direction. 

References:

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey, UK: Growler

Patel, 2015. 10 Examples of Companies With Fantastic Cultures. Retrieved from : https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/249174

A632.3.4.RB - Reflections on Decision Making

 Frame Blindness

     According to Shoemaker and Russo, a frame is basically the perspective through which you are looking at things. For example, if I am watching a lion lick the head of a baby lamb and think, “ah, he’s cleaning it because he loves it”, then I am obviously viewing this act through a loving perspective, or frame. What I am also doing is called frame blindness, because we all know what is going to happen to that baby lamb, but since I am viewing this action through my loving frame, it is going to be a big upset to me, when nature does what it does. To avoid this type of framing trap again, I conduct a frame audit. I look at the perspectives, or frames, of others so that I can have a better understanding of what is going on. If I had done that from the beginning, we would have left a lot sooner. If I had done an analysis of my assumption, then I would have realized my mistake. Through this mistake, I learned that I am guilty of having frame blindness and that sometimes it’s not a bad idea to look at how others are seeing things.

     I have been guilty of frame blindness at work. Sometimes, when you are the new person it is hard to gauge where you stand with other people and where you fit in. I was guilty of viewing things through a negative lens, causing me to have frame blindness. In this case, I had to do an analysis of my assumptions. When I did, I was able to see that sometimes it just takes people a little longer to warm up to the new person. When I did this, I was able to change my frame and things at the office became much better.

     Now that I have a better understanding of my own frame blindness I can identify and change the inadequate frames. By asking myself questions about the effectiveness of my frame and questioning my reference points, I make better decisions at work. The one tool that I use to help me do this is to focus on the objective and identifying the end result that I desire. 

Reference:

 Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. New York: Wiley.

A632.3.3.RB - Framing Complex Decisions

Framing Complex Decisions

     At our airport, the stakeholders consist of the government, shareholders, employees, financiers, customers, suppliers, and the local community. With this many complex entities to deal with it can become quite difficult to most of the happy, let alone all of them. Conflicts often arise while trying to serve the needs of all these groups, which is why it’s important to have different mythologies to deal with them. The first methodology used would be to gather data by way of conducting surveys. This would allow the airport to better understand the opinions and perceptions, so that they can take the necessary steps towards maintaining a positive relationship with the stakeholders. One option would be to tailor each survey to match the target audience. The consequences of the methodology would be in the trusting what the surveys said.

     The second methodology would be to make sure that there is an exchange of ideas with the leaders and the policymakers. The stakeholders are the ones who have a vested interest in the success of the company. They are also the ones who work in and around the company all day, so they are the ones that you would want to listen too. Making sure that their opinions are heard is what will make them feel like they really do play a role in the success of the company. One option for this methodology would be to hold monthly meetings with the leaders and policy makers so that everyone had the opportunity to state their ideas. The consequence of this method would be only receiving partial input from those who came to the meetings.

     The third methodology I would use to deal with complex stakeholders would be to make sure that we were closely coordinating with the governmental agencies and offices when it comes to regulations. An airport cannot run if it is not in compliance with FAA regulations and legal requirements, so an open dialogue between the agencies would be imperative. One option for this method would be to have someone in this field who was committed to this area knowledge and making sure that the airport was in compliance. The consequence of this would be in trusting the person you had in that position.