Complexity Leadership Within the Romance of Followership Theory

• In Event: Followers Ahead and Behind —Note the Variances Within

Short Description

The globalized and turbulent, complex, adaptive system is fraught with peril demanding complexity-based leadership that leverages followers and followership for organizations to survive, adapt, and thrive. The romance of followership theory extends the romance of leadership theory by adding complexity leadership concepts to the focus on followers as a complex systems-based followership paradigm.

Detailed Abstract

In the complex global competitive environment where high speed change and turbulent instability are the new normal, bureaucratic formal organizational structures do not permit rapid responses or enable sustained profitable behaviors (Avery, 2010). Complex adaptive systems (CAS) include natural or human based organizations that experience free competition of ideas resulting in complexity dynamics and effective or ineffective leadership (Curphy, Ginnett, & Hughes, 2012) that leverages resources and may offer a competitive advantage in human organizations (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2008). Common CAS elements are interdependent agents, coevolution, nonlinearity, unpredictability, adaptability, self-organization, emergence, self-organized criticality, disequilibrium, edge of chaos, creativity, and learning (Goldstein, Hazy, & Lichtenstein, 2010). Unpredictability is a common characteristic of CAS because no system can be known entirely (Goldstein, 2008), notably due to internal and external uncontrollable turbulent actions, individual variability, and non-linear interactions (Ashmos-Plowman & Duchon, 2008).

Organizations are themselves Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) that exist far from equilibrium where the ongoing interaction of system components leads to emergent and self-organizing behavior throughout the system (Ashmos-Plowman, Baker, Beck, Solansky, & Villareal-Travis, 2007). Complexity science applies to leadership by the examination of dynamic interactions between all individuals in a CAS environment, with theories of how complex interactions produce emergent outcomes (Ashmos-Plowman & Lichtenstein, 2009), including positive (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2009) or adverse results (Carlisle, 2011). A complete living systems perspective inclusive of leaders, followers, and organizations absent of deviant leadership is required to effectively compete in the emerging globalized CAS for successful OP&V (Cavelzani & Williams, 2013; Crutchfield, 2015). A CAS of leaders, followers, and organizations must continually adapt to a vague, turbulent, and complex working environment in order to meet organizational goals and failure to adapt quickly disables an organization (Cavanagh & Lane, 2012).

The Romance of Followership Theory (Crutchfield, 2015) is a necessary adjunct to advance the field of co-leadership as a group process (Gilstrap, 2013; Haslam et al., 2015) and co-creation of OP&V by leaders and followers to reduce deviant leadership and increase Organizational Performance & Value (OP&V). Leaders may influence followers optimally (Bashshur & Oc, 2013) or with deviant leadership (Crutchfield, 2015), and followers also influence leaders (Ashkanasy, Paulsen, & Tee, 2013) in a dyadic relationship (Bashshur & Oc, 2013). Followers may and should be able to influence deviant or optimal leaders (Heinitz, Kerschreiter, May, & Wesche, 2014), in the Romance of Followership Theory they would interact in a complex living system perspective according to Cavelzani and Williams (2013). Romance of followership theory and emphasis reduces the schism or gap between theoretical and practical applications of current real world leadership in the global CAS where followers have increasing importance (Hazy & Uhl-Bien, 2013) and an integrated theoretical framework (Martínez, Ruiz, & Ruiz, 2011). Romance of followership first and foremost places great emphasis on followers who create the great majority of organizational performance and value (Antelo, Henderson, & Prilipko, 2011; Kelley, 1992) in the emerging globalized CAS that includes organizational complexity (Fox & Spector, 2010) and virtual followers, not immediately located with leaders (Daassi, Favier, Jawadi, & Kalika, 2013).

Romance of followership needs implementation in leadership theory and practice throughout the leadership paradigm in the globalized CAS where followers' increasing power and ability to scan the ecological system for opportunities while learning, and innovating (Bligh, Kohles, & Yan, 2014). Romance of leadership theory holds leadership is a romantic, larger-than-life conception of the importance of leadership factors for the functioning of organizations where followers and followership are emphasized or the focus (Bligh & Kohles, 2012) in contexts defining leadership (Meindl, 1995). Romance of followership establishes crucial follower-centric relationship between followers and leaders crucial to success (Carsten, Lowe, Riggio, & Uhl-Bien, 2014) within the context of the organizational CAS, but moving towards a wholly complexity leadership styled approach with caution (Fenwick, 2010). Meindl's 1995 romance of leadership general model is therefore extended to include complexity theory and followers as an optimized theory, and also contains awareness of deviant leadership that destroys value and lives of followers.

Participant

• Gary Crutchfield, Boeing & President, DeviantLeadership.org