This document contains the text from a presentation on complexity leadership. It includes sections on lessons from living bridges in Meghalaya, such as leaders not needing all the answers and committing to learning. It also discusses reconciling complexity leadership with implicit leadership theories and whether followers see complexity leadership as bad leadership. The presentation proposes that complexity absorbing behaviors from leaders may negatively influence followers if not framed properly in terms of their instrumental value. It suggests explicitly communicating this value could help reconcile any differences.

1. Building Complexity Bridges
Across Great Divides
Keith Carpenter, Kent Covenant Church
Scott Conger, United States Air Force (Ret.)
Brian Davenport, Whitworth University
Kevin McDermott, University of Guelph
Commentator: Caroline Fu, Gonzaga University
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

2. Leadership Lessons from Nature: The Living
Bridges of Meghalaya
Scott Conger, United States Air Force (Ret.)
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

3. Lesson One: Leaders Do Not Need All the Answers
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

4. Lesson Two: Leaders Do Not Need All the Answers
“Dependable certainty … lies in confidence that one’s preparation is adequate
so that one may venture into the experience without pre-set answers but with
the assurance that creative insight will emerge in the situation when
needed, and that it will be right in the situation because it is an answer
generated in the situation” (Greenleaf, 1977)
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

5. Lesson Two: Commitment to Learning
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

6. Lesson Two: Commitment to Learning
“What if nine out of ten change initiatives in our organizations or
societies, were driven by excitement, by the idea that this would
serve somebody in a different way, that this would give us a
better way of living?” (Senge, 2006)
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

7. Lesson Three: Fewer Rules and Less Control
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

8. Leadership Lessons from Nature: The Living
Bridges of Meghalaya
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

9. Don’t Curse the
Chaos—Learning to
Lead Complex
Churches
Keith Carpenter, Kent Covenant
Church
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

10. Organizational Complexity
The swirling, nonlinear, random, multiple, redundant interactions of
many agents
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

11. Emergence
In nature and history change leaps into
existence following
disruption, turmoil, tension, or chaos
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

12. Pastors Often Try to
Suppress Turmoil
Turmoil Accompanies
Emergent Change
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

13. Complex Organizations
Distributed Intelligence
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

14. The Revitalization of Mission Church
“What Would Jesus Do?”
See Plowman, D. A. (2007) The role of leadership in
emergent, self-organization. The Leadership
Quarterly, 18, 341-356.
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

15. Adaptive
Change
Is Frequently Bottom Up
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

16. Do followers see complexity
leadership as bad leadership?
Reconciling Complexity Leadership with
Implicit Leadership Theories
Kevin McDermott, MBA, PhD Candidate (ABD)
University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
Department of Business
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

17. Agenda
• Theoretical Positioning
– Complexity Leadership
– Implicit Leadership Theories
• Complexity Leadership and Constituent
Perception
– Implicit complexity absorption vs. Implicit
leadership theories
– Explicit complexity absorption reconcile the
differences?
• Discussion
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

18. Theoretical Positioning
• Complexity Leadership Theory
“leadership should be seen not only as position and authority
but also as an emergent, interactive dynamic—a complex
interplay from which a collective impetus for action and
change emerges when heterogeneous agents interact in
networks in ways that produce new patterns of behavior or
new modes of operating”
(Uhl-Bien, Marion & McKelvey, 2007, emphasis added)
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

19. Theoretical Positioning
• Can this be operationalize this in terms of
positional leadership behaviours?
– Those that encourage an interactive dynamic and
fosters adaptive dynamics that progress
organizational goals
(Uhl-Bein, Marion & McKelvey, 2007)
– Those that can absorb complexity, make use of
disorder, irregularity, and differences (complexity
absorption) vs. those that seek to reduce uncertainty
and error (complexity reduction)
(Stacey, 1995; Boisot & Child, 1999)
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

20. Theoretical Positioning
• Can this be operationalize this in terms of
positional leadership behaviours?
• Hybrid-Strategies
(Boisot & Child, 1999; Walters & Bhuian, 2004)
• Self-Organization
(Ashmos, Duchon & McDaniel, 2002)
• Participative Decision Making
(Clarke, 2006)
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

21. Theoretical Positioning
Complexity Leadership
Complexity Absorbing
Behaviours
HybridStrategies
Participative
Decision
Making
SelfOrganization
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

22. Theoretical Positioning
• Implicit Leadership Theories: constituents tend to
perceive leaders as effective if they possess
certain traits or characteristics
– Culturally dependent
(Ling, Chia & Fang, 2000)
– Western cultures tend to favour:
•
•
•
•
Dedication (disciplined, prepared)
Tyranny (pushy, domineering)
Intelligence (knowledgeable, wise)
Strength (forceful, powerful)
(Offerman, Kennedy & Wirtz, 1994).
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

23. Complexity Absorbing Behaviours
vs. Implicit Leadership Theories
Leadership behaviours that encourage SelfOrganization, Participative Decision Making and HybridStrategies may negatively influence constituents’
perception of a leader’s effectiveness because of the
constituents’ implicit leadership theories.
In contexts where these leaders don’t frame these
behaviours in terms of their instrumental value to the
organization (Implicit Complexity Absorption)
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

24. Complexity Absorbing Behaviours
vs. Implicit Leadership Theories
Self-Organization
Participative Decision
Making
Dedication
(disciplined, prepared)
Tyranny
(pushy, domineering)
Intelligence
(knowledgeable, wise)
Strength
(forceful, powerful, dec
isiveness)
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA
Hybrid Strategies

25. Complexity Absorbing Behaviours
vs. Implicit Leadership Theories
Self-Organization
Proposition #1
Dedication
(disciplined, prepared)
Participative Decision
Making
Proposition #2
Preparedness
Tyranny
(pushy, domineering)
Intelligence
(knowledgeable, wise)
Strength
(forceful, powerful,
decisiveness)
Hybrid Strategies
Proposition #3
Preparedness
Tyranny
Wisdom
Wisdom
Preparedness Conger, Davenport, &
Strength
© Carpenter,
McDermott, 2012 ILA
Wisdom
Decisiveness

26. Explicit Complexity Absorption
Purposefully communicating with constituents regarding
the instrumental value of self-organization,
participative decision making and hybrid-strategies, as
well as explaining the environmental context that make
complexity absorption strategies appropriate
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

27. Explicit Complexity Absorption
Self-Organization
Proposition #1
Dedication
(disciplined, prepared)
Participative Decision
Making
Proposition #2
Preparedness
Hybrid Strategies
Proposition #3
Preparedness
Proposition #5
Tyranny
(pushy, domineering)
Intelligence
(knowledgeable, wise)
Proposition #4
Tyranny
Frame Self-Organization and Participative
Decision Making in terms of Employee
Empowerment
Wisdom
Wisdom
(Dewettinck & Ameijde, 2008)
Strength
(forceful, powerful,
decisiveness)
Preparedness Conger, Davenport, &
Strength
© Carpenter,
McDermott, 2012 ILA
Frame HybridStrategies in terms
of organizational
capacity building
in Wisdom of
the face
environmental
dynamism
Decisiveness

28. Discussion
Thank you
1) Is it theoretically appropriate to categorize complexity
absorbing leadership behaviours as a subset of
complexity leadership (as per Uhl-Bein et al.)?
2) Other complexity absorbing leadership behaviours
that should be included besides hybridstrategies, self-organization and participative decision
making?
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

29. Occupy Complexity:
Using Complexity To Examine The
Occupy Wall St. Movement
Brian Davenport, Whitworth
University
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

30. COMPARING TWO EVENTS IN
ZUCCOTTI PARK
• Empire State Rebellion
– Date: June 14, 2011
– Objective: Occupy Zuccotti Park
– Attendance: 4 People
• Occupy Wall St.
– Date: September 17, 2011
– Objective: Occupy Zuccotti Park
– Attendance: ≈ 2,000 People
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

31. EXTERNAL FACTORS
• It is important to understand the external forces that
have an impact on any given social system (Castellani &
Hafferty, 2009).
• National unemployment rate was at 9.1% and had
been over 9% for just over two years. There hasn’t
been an unemployment rate over 9% since 1983
(Bureau of Labor Statistics).
• Success of the “Arab Spring”. After seeing the success
of the numerous revolutions that took place in North
Africa, it only makes sense that a frustrated populace
would see beginning a protest movement as a viable
option.
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

32. INDEPENDENT AGENTS
• Independent agents are necessary for complex
realities to emerge (Castellani & Hafferty, 2009;
Plowman & Duchon, 2008).
• For any idea to truly spread a few select types of
people need to be involved performing specific
functions, people he called connectors, mavens,
and salesmen (Gladwell, 2002).
• Connector: Someone who knows a lot of people
in different social groups.
• Adbusters served as the connector
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

33. © Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

34. INDEPENDENT AGENTS cont.
• Mavens: People who are “information specialists”.
• David Graeber introduced the idea of the general
assembly to the people who were early participators
in the planning of Occupy Wall St.
• Salesmen: People “with the skill to persuade us when
we are unconvinced of what we are hearing”.
• For the Occupy Wall St. movement this role was
played by a group of hacktavists known collectively
as Anonymous.
• Specific agents, not specific people, are necessary for
an idea or a movement to emerge from the complexity
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

35. IMPACT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
• The connection of independent agents is essential to
the emergence of complex adaptive systems.
• The use of the general assembly in the Occupy Wall
St. movement allowed for each person, or node,
involved in the movement to communicate with other
nodes.
• “Each person in a network is a “node” and through
talk and interaction “connections” among the nodes
are formed. The addition of new nodes or changes in
the nature of the connections between the nodes can
lead to changes that have enormous consequence”
(Plowman & Duchon, 2008 p. 132).
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

36. IMPACT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
• If a problem couldn’t be solved in the general
assembly, a working committee was formed to
continue working on the problem with the goal of
reporting back to the general assembly (Bennett,
2011).
• Each social system is compiled from networks of
attracting clusters.
• The working committees allowed for the creation of
attracting clusters around specific ideas
• General Assemblies and working committees allowed
for process wisdom (Vaill, 1998).
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

37. IMPACT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
• This process wisdom allowed the Occupy Wall
St. movement to develop a system that
facilitates in-time responses to both internal
and external stimuli.
• This allowed for a positive response to the
disequilibrium created by numerous external
stimuli and the injection of new energy into
the system.
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

38. Occupy Today
• The movement has lost significant
momentum. Why?
– Division
– Lack of goals
• Can the movement regain prominence?
– Yes?
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA

39. Question & Discussion
Commentator: Dr. Caroline
Fu, Gonzaga University
© Carpenter, Conger, Davenport, &
McDermott, 2012 ILA