I've read the middle part of this book several times, as written by
Tom Peters, by
Ricardo Semler, and by others. This is
the bit about treating people at work as adults, by being honest and
caring, allowing them to realise their potential, grow in their work,
and perform an excellent job. The ideas are good, but I found it hard
to be excited by them, simply because I've seen them before.
The difference with this book is that the authors relate these ideas
to complex systems theory.
p26.
most of the words we use to describe the
world are ... the exceptions, not the rule: namely "linear",
"stable", and "equilibrium". In fact, 95 percent
of the world is nonlinear, unstable, and far from equilibrium. To
describe 95 percent of the world as "not" something is
contrary in the extreme. It reflects a lot about our psyche, and the
way we have assumed things to be, not as they really are.
In our fast changing world, businesses can no longer afford to be
static, rigid, old fashioned hierarchies: they must be adaptive,
nimble and responsive networks. And the way to do this, the authors
claim, is to recognise that they are "complex adaptive systems",
and make sure they are "on the edge of chaos", or, as they
prefer to call it, "in the zone of creative adaptability".
p324.
Different states are appropriate for
different times ... : a static state, when the environment is little
changing and certain; and a chaotic state, when old patterns need to
be broken through, to be replaced by something new, but as yet
unknown; and the zone of creative adaptability, when innovation is
necessary.
Leadership is no longer about control. Instead, its function is to
break down the old hierarchical structures, to keep a company in the
creative zone, to provide some high level overall vision, but then to
step back, and to let the people "do it themselves". The
honesty and caring part comes from this being necessary to foster the
right kinds of communication in the zone so that the people have the
necessary information, the confidence, and the desire, to do the job.
Structurally, it is important to allow teams to emerge
naturally, rather than having their composition imposed from outside.
This way the right people come together, and form the right team.
p324.
you no longer have to defend being "soft",
because now you know why it works, not just that it does
work.
I want to believe, but I'm not totally convinced. I believe the
philosophy is a good, humane and practical one, but is it really
based on complexity science? Or is it merely applying the field's
technical jargon, like "edge of chaos" and "emergence",
to only superficial similarities? It's hard to tell. But maybe it
doesn't matter; the authors admit it is more of an illuminating
metaphor, rather than providing hard and fast (and hence possible
inappropriate) rules:
p325.
The science has done its job: it has
brought us to a position of seeing organizations through new eyes. ...
But businesspeople no longer need constantly to seek the validation of
the science for each new way way we might feel --- through intuition
--- is right to work with organizations as complex adaptive systems.
