Complexity Leadership: A Theorical Perspective

Abstract

Complex systems are social networks composed of interactive employees interconnected through collaborative, dynamic ties such as shared goals, perspectives and needs. Complex systems are largely based on "the complex system theory". The complex system theory focuses mainly on finding out and developing strategies and behaviours that foster continuous learning, resonating with new conditions and creativity in organizations with dynamic collaborative management mentality. Complex systems surely need leaders to manage complexity. Complexity leadership could be defined as adaptive mechanisms developed by complex organizations in new conditions required by the information age, rather than technical problems entailed by the industrial age. Complexity leadership is a joint, resultant product of the following three types of leadership: (1) administrative leadership based on strict control and a significant bureaucratic hierarchy (2) adaptive leadership fundamentally based on creative problem solving, resonating with new conditions and learning and (3) action-centered leadership that involves immediate decision-making mechanisms employed in crises and dynamic productivity. The study focuses on complexity leadership within the context of the complexity leadership theory. Keywords AbstractLos sistemas complejos son redes sociales formadas de empleados interactivos interconectados a través de lazos dinámicos y colaborativos, tales como metas, perspectivas y necesidades compartidas. Los sistemas complejos se basan en gran medida en "la teoría del sistema complejo". La teoría del sistema complejo se centra principalmente en descubrir y desarrollar estrategias y comportamientos que fomenten el aprendizaje continuo, que resuenen con las nuevas condiciones y la creatividad en las organizaciones con mentalidad dinámica de gestión colaborativa. Los sistemas complejos necesitan ciertamente líderes para gestionar la complejidad. El liderazgo de la complejidad podría definirse como mecanismos adaptativos desarrollados por organizaciones complejas en nuevas condiciones requeridas por la era de la información, más que por los problemas técnicos de la era industrial. El liderazgo de complejidad es un producto conjunto resultante de los siguientes tres tipos de liderazgo: (1) liderazgo administrativo basado en un control estricto y una jerarquía burocrática significativa (2) liderazgo adaptativo fundamentalmente basado en la resolución creativa de problemas, resonando con nuevas condiciones y aprendizaje y 3) un liderazgo centrado en la acción que implique mecanismos inmediatos de toma de decisiones empleados en las crisis y la productividad dinámica. El estudio se centra en el liderazgo de la complejidad dentro del contexto de la teoría del liderazgo de la complejidad.

Towards a model and strategy for transformational change

“…Change management acumen in the field of organizational management is an important core competency, which is derived from organizational focus and change management strategy, which enables professionals to create significant improvements in management (Webber & Scott, 2008). As a leader in instruction and management, one will become so by creating processes to address organizational problems as well as more abstract technical issues that occur in organizations (Baltaci & Balcı, 2017). The ability to bring innovative ideas and processes to light leads to better management of organizational initiatives (Hosseini, Kees, Manderscheid, Röglinger, & Rosemann, 2017).…”

Global Higher Education in a VUCA World: Concerns and Projections

“…Complexity or the presence of a multitude of possible or difficult to understand causes and other factors both internal and external to the organization are involved in solving problems (Baltaci & Balci, 2017;Obolensky, 2014). The additional layer of complexity, paired with heightened turbulence, and a lack of easily understood past predictor's increases the difficulty in making good decisions (Moodie, 2016).…”

The relationship between complexity behavior and enterprise growth: A case of savings and credit cooperatives in Uganda

“…They identified centrality, betweenness centrality, closeness centrality, reciprocity, and transitivity as quantifiable dimensions for social networks that were adopted and modified to fit the study measurements. The measurement items for enterprise growth were adopted from Anyadike-Danes, Bonner, Hart, and Mason (2009) that measure growth in terms of change in business income, business volumes, profitability, employment, and investment (Asset capital) levels. In addition, Gupta, Guha, and Krishnaswami's (2013) measure of growth of a firm in terms of change in revenue generation, value addition and expansion in terms of volume of business, as well as the qualitative features like market position, quality of products, and goodwill of the customers were selectively adopted and modified for the study.…”