Expert answer:Collective Leadership
Solved by verified expert:Part 1 Need 200-250 words with scholarly (journals) references required within the last 5 years to answer the following: Chou, Lin and Chou’s article shared the relationship between Transactive Memory System (TMS), collective mind, collective efficacy, and making effective decisions. In what significant ways do relationships and trust contribute to TMS and to making effective team decisions? References Chou, H. W., Lin, Y. H., & Chou, S. B. (2012). Team recognition, collective efficacy, and performance in strategic decision-making teams. Social Behavior and Personality, 40(3), 381-394. Part 2 Need 200-250 words with scholarly (journals) references required within the last 5 years to answer the following:Gilstrap (2013) analyzed the effects of team-based structure and of blended organizational structure on shared leadership and decision making. Support or refute the opinion that chaotic theory is destructive to the organization and to the individuals within the organization. References Gilstrap, D. L. (2013). Leadership and decision making in team-based organizations: A model of bounded chaotic cycling in emerging system states. Emergence Complexity & Organization, 15(5) 24-54.
gilstrap__d._l.__2013_._leadership_and_decision_making_in_team_based_organizations_a_model_of_bounded_chaotic_cycling_in_emerging_system_states..pdf
chou__h._w.__lin__y._h.____chou__s._b.__2012_._team_recognition__collective_efficacy__and_performance_in_strategic_decision_making_teams.pdf
bergman__j._z.__rentsch__j._r.__small__e._e.____bergman__s._m.__2012_._the_shared_leadership_process_in_decision_making_teams..pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Leadership And Decision-Making In Team-Based Organizations
E:CO Issue Vol. 15 No. 3 2013 pp. 24-54
Theoretical
LEADERSHIP AND DECISIONMAKING IN TEAM-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS: A MODEL OF
BOUNDED CHAOTIC CYCLING IN
EMERGING SYSTEM STATES
Donald L. Gilstrap
Wichita State University, USA
This article discusses the results of both intrinsic and instrumental case study
investigations of team-based leadership and decision-making in an Association
of Research Libraries (ARL) institution undergoing dramatic change and
restructuring activities. Since team-based models were used extensively within
the organization, systems theory is introduced. Chaos theory is next explained
as a more robust theoretical framework for analyzing and describing the
turbulence and rapid changes encountered by individuals attempting to make
sense of these organizational shifts at both the micro and macro levels. Findings
of this research suggest that a paradox occurs during periods of restructuring
activities in organizations going through significant change: 1) models which
are alternatives to traditional hierarchical bureaucracies are necessary for
organizations to break from the status quo when confronted with the need for
rapid and inclusive decision-making, and 2) organizational structures heavily
influenced by self-organizing teams go through recursive phases of expansion,
leading to unbounded chaos in leadership and decision-making processes.
Employees identified a lack of individual accountability in team-based decisionmaking, the challenges of leadership at the individual level, and the need for
defined supervisory roles were all issues to be addressed for the continued,
successful evolution of the organization. As a result of these findings, the author
then introduces an iterative, phase state model of chaotic cycling in emerging
system states. This model focuses on bounded chaotic systems that blend selforganization with structural feedback mechanisms in leadership and decisionmaking processes.
24 | Gilstrap
T
INTRODUCTION
he impact of technology and the change it brings in educational settings drives
professionals to make fast decisions with large amounts of information. As a
result, our schools and colleges are now confronted with rapidly changing and
often turbulent system states which have challenged the “century-long domination of
the bureaucratic organization” (Travica, 1998: 1224). Academic libraries are one area
of our educational institutions that have seen transformational changes as a result
of emerging technologies. People working in these types of libraries have managed
the conversion of print to digital mediums while continually focusing on evolving
professional skill sets that rely more and more heavily on the creation, management,
and teaching of digital systems. Viewing this from the perspective of leadership and
organizational dynamics is particularly germane to this journal, since some of these
libraries, as leadership organizations, have implemented team-based organizational
structures to help lead this transformation in research, scholarly communication, and
teaching in a digital age. By investigating the challenges and successes of one complex system in particular at the micro level of an institution, we might be able to understand how team-based models can influence organizational change while positively affecting leadership and decision-making at the macro level of educational systems.
Team-based models introduce an evolutionary perspective of adaptation to a
continually changing environment, and they have perhaps received most attention
from a systems theoretical framework (Senge, 1994, 2004; Yukl, 2002). And the evolution of systems theories has led to research on quantum-oriented chaos and complexity theories which has grown to incorporate new and emerging team structures, ranging from matrix organizations to purely self-organized and self-managed teams. Many
researchers have chosen to bridge these theoretical frameworks in order to provide an
epistemology more closely associated with nonlinear decision-making and leadership
in organizational development (Lazaridou, 2007; Lumby, 2009; Stacey, 1992; Wheatley,
1994). The number of educational institutions that have incorporated the team-based
organizational model are still relatively few, and some might argue team-based models in public institutions are altruistic in nature. However, there is a growing amount
of studies of team-based models in educational settings represented in the literature
on this subject (Baker, Onyx, & Edwards, 2011; Bazirjian & Stanley, 2001; Fullan, 2001;
McLaren, 2001; Phipps, 2004; Travica, 1998; Turnbull, 2005; van Ameijde et al., 2009).
In spite of arguments for or against the team environment, oftentimes unpredicted
phenomena emerge from these organizational structures and subsequent information
decision systems after implementation within the larger university structure.
E:CO Vol. 15 No. 3 2013 pp. 24-54 | 25
This concept of an evolutionary process of change and adaptability expands upon
our current understanding of phenomena associated with transition in our educational institutions. Scientists studying the natural world, such as Prigogine and Stengers
(1984), Jantsch (1981), and Bak (1996), have found evolutionary models in the physical
and biological sciences in which systems in turbulence become nonlinear, far-fromequilibrium, and unpredictable. In many cases, the chaotic and complex nature of
these systems leads individual units to self-organize and facilitate transformative development of the system—where increasing complexity emerges—and the exponential contributions of information management and decision-making are at the heart
of these systems. Several other scientists, ranging from cosmologists to computer scientists, have shared similar observations in the natural world in a quantum science
that has come to be referred to through the general term complexity theory (Capra,
1997; Favre et al., 1988; Gell-Mann, 1995; Gleick, 1987; Grover et al., 1997; Hayward
& Preston, 1999; Holland, 1998; Liu, 1996; Nicolis & Prigogine, 1989; Petersen, 1993;
Waldrop, 1992).
Researchers in organizational theory have also shown that institutions undergoing nonlinear and far-from-equilibrium turbulence exhibit many of the features found
in the physical and biological sciences. They argue that individuals within these organizational environments act in manners similar to the observations described by
scientists studying the natural world (Gilstrap, 2007; Lichtenstein, 2000; MacIntosh
and MacLean, 1999, 2001; Morgan, 1997; Newman, 2000; Stacey, 1992). Extending this
perspective to research on libraries, Braman (1994) notes that, “because the key feature of this environment is turbulence, theories about chaotic systems may be the
most useful base from which to reconceptualize the state” (p. 358). It is therefore the
purpose of this research to examine the case of one discrete entity in the context of a
larger educational institution. For this particular case study, a research library that has
implemented a non-traditional, team-based structure in order to affect transformative
changes was chosen from on site case study and individual interviewing. Guided by
the general research question “how do research librarians respond to their organizational structure” (Gilstrap, 2007b), this article identifies specifically the impact and effects of this structure on leadership and decision-making in this organization. Equally,
this study analyzes these phenomena through an interpretive framework of complexity theory, and a model of bounded cycling in chaotic systems is then introduced as a
method for further research on the outcomes of team-based leadership and decisionmaking in educational institutions.
26 | Gilstrap
C
LITERATURE REVIEW
omplex systems are systems that have structure with variation and can include
dissipative structures and chaotic systems. They are typically nonlinear, and
only a limited explanation of a complex system’s properties is obtainable by
studying discretely its component parts. Complex systems are oftentimes bounded by
simple rules which lead to patterns and relationships during the phenomenon of selforganization, frequently occurring at the point just before entering a chaotic phase
(Bak, 1996; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984; Waldrop, 1992). They contain simultaneous
order and disorder that promote transformative bifurcations in the system state, and
it is at this bifurcation point where supracritical self-organization leads system agents
to choose collectively the next irreversible path for the system (Bak, 1996; Prigogine
& Stengers, 1984) (Figure 1). This presented a paradox within the scientific and social
sciences communities, as entropy production is normally considered to be destructive rather than as a catalyst for creating further structure (Gilstrap, 2007; Langlois,
1982; Liu, 1996; Rothman, 1997). And these phenomena have also been documented
in the literature on management of information systems and organizational structures
in libraries and information agencies, as is the case with this research study (Braman,
1994; Hayward & Preston, 1999; Langlois, 1982; Liu, 1996; Travica, 1998).
Chaos theory, a sub-set of complexity theory, has evolved from the mathematical and geometrical investigations of Lorenz (1963) and Mandelbrot (1975) and has
been mainstreamed in the scientific and social and behavioral sciences communities
(Grover et al., 1997; Hayward & Preston, 1999; Lazaridou, 2007; Lumby, 2009). In nearequilibrium systems, a very large shock to the system is needed to move it into a
non-equilibrium state. However, when a system operates in a chaotic state, the system
becomes highly sensitive to initial conditions which can lead to unpredictable, complex structural changes. This concept is most commonly known through the Lorenz
Figure 1 Feigenbaum Bifurcation Diagram
(Adapted from Gerry’s Mandelbrot Set)
E:CO Vol. 15 No. 3 2013 pp. 24-54 | 27
Butterfly Effect, showing a chaotic system’s movement toward a basin of attraction
(Figure 2), and Mandelbrot Sets, where recursivity in chaotic geometrical processes
contributes to higher order development of the system state (Figure 3).
Reinforcing aspects of strange attractors within chaotic systems, such as with the
Lorenz attractor, the introduction of the parameters by the observer influences the
subsequent phenomena the complex system presents. Consequently, as with waveparticle duality in physical systems, researchers cannot extricate themselves from the
emergence of the complex system. From a human behavior focused framework, the
interaction between the researcher and the information system extends research such
as Schön’s (1971, 1991) focus on reflective practice. Equally, Argyris & Schön’s (1978)
concept of second-order learning in organizations highlights the complex system in
individual contributions to learning how to learn about the organization rather than
replicating learning models that facilitate further error creation. This focus on an epistemological framework of organizational learning exemplifies the works of social scientists on meaning-making, sense making, and knowledge utilization (Fullan, 2001;
Langlois, 1982; Lazaridou, 2007; Lumby, 2009; Piggot-Irvine, 2010; Solomon, 1997)
while equally helping to drive this study’s findings.
In management literature on chaos and complexity theory, several articles have
been written that follow similar interpretive analyses as are used in this study. Levy
(1994) was one of the original researchers to introduce the application of the theory
in strategic management processes and relies on the scientific works of Per Bak (Bak
& Chen, 1991) from which this study also interprets conclusions. Perhaps most importantly, Levy (1994) focuses on a phase-based model of chaos theory that relies
Figure 2 Lorenz Attractor
(Adapted from Gerry’s Mandelbrot Set)
28 | Gilstrap
Figure 3 Mandelbrot Set
(Adapted from XaOS)
on the history of experiences among and between system agents for explanation of
the organizational state, similar to the case study analysis presented in this research.
Moreover, several other leadership and management researchers have utilized complexity theory as a framework for describing organizational transformation. MacIntosh & MacLean, (1999, 2001) have interpreted systemic dissipative structures through
conditioned emergence, where organizational parameters are set up in a way to elicit
supercritical activities, leading to bifurcations in the system state. Newman (2000) incorporated dissipative structures as a path for returning epistemologically to Argyris
& Schön’s (1978) theory of second order learning during institutional upheaval. Breu
and Benwell (1999) analyzed individual hypercritical states that contribute to organizational nonlinearity, and Stacey (1992) described any organization going through
turbulence as exhibiting features and phenomena of chaotic systems. This literature is
therefore influential in the interpretation of the phenomena that emerged during this
case study.
Although leadership is generally understood by those in administrative positions,
an individual’s perceptions of and subsequent contributions to knowledge about this
construct are usually shallow at best. Since leadership is integral to decision-making
processes, an investigation of participant perceptions of leadership in their organization is also included. Furthermore, the epistemological framework for leadership theory is multi-faceted; therefore, a broad literature base is included in this study to provide a foundation for understanding the many ways leadership can emerge in an organization going through change. Blake and Mouton’s (1981a, 1981b) attribute theory
describes leadership attributes in relation to leadership styles. Hersey and Blanchard’s
(1993) situational theory matches leadership behavior to follower readiness and skill
levels. Burns (1979, 2003) focus on transformational leadership helps the reader to
understand wide-scale organizational change. Argyris and Schön’s (1978) action research, van Ameijde et al.’s (2009) distributed leadership, Senge’s (1994, 2004) systems framework, and Checkland’s (1999) soft systems each provide a theoretical lens
for facilitating organizational learning. Bass (1998) differentiates between and Shamir,
House, and Arthur’s (1993) integration of transactional, transformational, and charismatic leadership in organizational improvement. And finally, MacIntosh and MacLean
(1999, 2001), Pascale, Millemann, and Gioja (2000), Fullan (2001), and Stacey (1992,
2003) each provide a framework of chaos and complexity analysis of leadership and
group dynamics in organizations going through turbulent change.
E:CO Vol. 15 No. 3 2013 pp. 24-54 | 29
A
METHOD
n Association of Research Libraries (ARL) institution of higher education using
a team-based structure while also undergoing a transformative change process
was identified for case study research. The library system in this study falls in
the median among ARL peers, is part of a public research institution of higher education with the Carnegie Classification of very high research activity, and has an FTE
enrollment of approximately 30,000 students. As a requirement for institutional review
board policies, participant responses are treated anonymously, and the library is given
the pseudonym “East Coast University (ECU) Libraries” in order to preserve further the
anonymity of the participants. Preliminary surveys were sent to approximately 60 professional librarians at this institution that asked participants to describe the concept of
change in their library. The completed surveys received by this author helped further
narrow participants in the study through purposive sampling, based on the richness
of descriptions in participant responses (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Seventeen librarians
were chosen for on-site interviews, and a nonlinear clustering technique (Pegg, 2007;
Rico, 2000) and semi-structured interview guide were integrated into the interviewing
protocol. Individual interviews lasted approximately one to one and one-half hours for
each participant. Any further detail on selection of the institution, the participants, or
data collection would violate institutional review board policies at both the host and
researcher’s universities.
Instrumental case studies of each research subject were coordinated into an intrinsic case study of the organization, and phenomena that emerged through analysis
were aggregated through fractal-based collective case study method (Gilstrap, 2009;
Stake, 1995, 2005, 2006). Data were equally analyzed using multiple methods in order to decrease the influence of this researcher, including constant comparison, multiple researchers, and data triangulation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Although this study
more broadly incorporated several other areas of investigation, the main focus of this
article addresses the general research question, how do these individuals respond to
their organizational structure? (Gilstrap, 2007b). Data are then presented in a complex
systems analysis specifically focused on leadership and decision-making in this organization in particular.
30 | Gilstrap
FINDINGS:
DECISION-MAKING IN THE TEAM ENVIRONMENT
I
Description Of The Organizational System State
n order to capture a representation of this educational organization in the presentation of findings, it is first necessary to describe the current organization in terms of the
historical development of the complex system state (Simon, 1985). The ECU Libraries
have gone through two identified reorganizations over the past 15 years. Previous to the
early 1990s, the library operated with a traditional hierarchical organizational structure.
The organization was divided into two main units, technical services and public services,
and all librarians reported to one of these two units which were administered by associate deans. Upon the arrival of a new director, during the 1990s, a significant reorganization took place, moving the ECU Libraries to a team-based environment. Library and university administrators, as well as library staff, had identified that departments within the
library had become cloistered and were no longer functioning at a progressive enough
level to respond to decision-making and information flows imposed by a rapidly evolving and turbulent environment. This new team-based structure shifted reporting lines
and opened up communication channels between areas previously seen as isolated from
each other. The two main units of technical and public services were replaced with several
new units that were oriented toward organizational functions.
The library incorporated several different types of teams, similar to those discussed by Yukl (2002). Cross-functional teams involved individuals from different
areas that came together to work on organizational-wide goals and initiatives. Selfmanaged teams also developed based on identified organizational needs for short
periods. Area teams were created to facilitate implementation of the new organizational structure while leading the work in the newly created units through a process
of shared leadership and decision-making. And functional teams were designed to focus the shared specialization of particular groups of people toward discrete decisionmaking tasks. Organizational goals and priorities were also developed primarily by
the cross-functional and area teams, and this mechanism was in place to identify and
implement the strategic planning process.
In addition to the evolving environment of research, teaching, and learning, the
financial crises experienced by institutions across the country during the beginning of
the twenty-first century precipitated the need for further organizational restructuring
at …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades