Reflections on Chaos

November 16, 2016

Complex Problem Resolution Theory

I just read about an exercise called the chaos game.  It is at the beginning of Nick Obolensky’s book, “Complex Adaptive Strategy”.  The exercise is posted at the beginning of chapter 6.  The purpose of the game is to give a complex task with a few simple rules to the players, and see if they can come up with a solution.  The game has been played in many different training scenarios.  The game needs between 8-50 players with an area large enough to accommodate the players so that they do not touch each other.  The rules are as follows:

1.      Stay within the boundaries.

2.      Use the space when you start and continue – you will want to gravitate towards each other, but this will make it harder – so keep your distance from others and use the space.

3.      Move slowly and make the minimum needed minor adjustments to your position.  Cover the least possible ground – if you make big and/or fast movements across the area you will be unpopular and be breaking the rules.

4.      You can only stand still when your objective is achieved.

5.      Objective:  What you need to do is to adjust your position slowly and gradually so that you are at an equal distance from each person you have chosen as your reference points – equal distance does NOT necessarily mean in between.  You could be at a point such as an equidistant triangle to position yourself.

6.      You cannot let the other two people know that they are your reference points.  It is supposed to be only known to you.

7.      The monitor of the game will start a time hack when the game begins.

The facilitator tells them to begin.  The facilitator needs to be patient and not try to give direction or instructions.  He must also remind the players of the rule not to communicate in any way with the other players.

The lesson learned is that the more complex the situation and task, the less directive traditional leadership is needed.  It is a counter-intuitive concept, but one that I feel has been proven accurate.

The implication of this game on organizational strategy is that it demonstrates the need for complex organizations to evolve towards a polyarchy structure in which leaders empower the workers to accomplish complex tasks efficiently.

It also synchronizes with my point that an oligarchy system has a hard time accepting solutions and feedback from the artisans performing the work.  Perhaps if these organizations consisted of visionary leaders who would recognize the counter-intuitiveness of communication feedback from the bottom to the top, that they would be strong enough to implement such a process.

I will attempt to use this strategy as I attempt to solve one of my wildly important goals (WIGs) at work.  I believe the key to the strategy will be to give out very general guidelines and not try to direct the process.  This WIG has been a thorn in the side of CCAD for a long time.  I am interested in finding out if this tactic can resolve the issue.  If it can, then CCAD will be able to use the template of resolution to enact a long-term strategy with one of its stakeholders.

John H2O

Reference:

Obolensky, Nick (2016). Complex Adaptive Leadership 2nd Edition. New York: Taylor and

            Francis