1

Name:

University:

Course:

Tutor:

Date:
 2

Complexity Leadership Models vs. other Leadership Models

Introduction

Hersey (1984) defines leadership as the ability to influence others to

contribute willingly to the goals of an organization. Leaders have followers whom

they work with to attain the goals that have been created. They provide a guideline

about how things should happen in the organization. Leaders aim at working with

and through people to achieve the desired objectives (Graeff, 1983). This paper is a

discussion about complexity leadership theory, analysis of other leadership theories,

comparison and contrast of complexity leadership theories with other theories and

lastly, a brief explanation of the pros and cons of the complexity theory.

The complexity leadership theory

Complexity leadership theory is a new leadership concept developed to assist

people carry out their leadership activities efficiently. The complex leadership theory

suggests that organizations are made up of complicated systems which are made up

of diversified agency relationships that interact and affect each other. This inter-

relationship leads to bottom-up behavior between all the agents. Complex leaders

seek to achieve a network that links all activities and people together to achieve

success through diversity of activities. Interdependence among different units in the

organization is encouraged to achieve synergies from all departments (Marion & Uhl-

Bien, 2002).

According to Morse, Buss and Kinghorn (2007), complexity theory was

established to augment the existing types of leadership but not to replace them.

Complex leaders focus more on the process of achieving results rather than the

results themselves. For example, complexity leadership provides that efficiency in

 3

communication is important to achieve a smooth system of operating things within

the organization. In addition, complex leaders provide that continuous learning is an

important process of achieving goals within the organization (Morse, Buss &

Kinghorn, 2007).

Other leadership theories

Several theorists have come up with different versions which describe

leaders. Great man theory explains that leaders have traits which they are born with

and that these traits are unique to each person (Changing mind, 2010). The trait

theory is similar to the great man theory in that it provides that great leaders have

specific characteristics (Jones, Heijden, & De Bono, 2008). Situational leadership

theory requires the leader to apply different leadership skills depending on the

situation (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988). On the other hand, behavioural leadership

theories explain that leaders can be made and are not born (Lussier & Achua, 2009).

Under participative leadership, decision making also involves the followers

other than the leader being the sole decision maker (Cherry, 2010). According to

Lussier (2008), delegating leadership suits well where followers have demonstrated

know-how and commitment. Under the coaching leadership model, the leader acts

like a teacher to the followers and he/she guides them towards achieving the goals

of the company (Craig, 2009).

Contrast between complexity leadership theories and traditional leadership

Complexity leadership differs from other traditional leadership theories in a

number of ways. Leaders are said to be created by the systems in an organization

under the complex leadership theories. This is achieved by the use of the process of

aggregation and emergence. On the other hand, the traditional leadership theories
 4

provide that leaders create the system within an organization (Marion & Uhl-Bien,

2002).

A complex system requires leaders to use indirect leadership while the

traditional leadership theories prefer the use of direct leadership. Complexity

leadership theories do not encourage the use of bureaucracy as compared to the

traditional leadership. Traditional leadership theories encourage the use of top-down

leadership control system as opposed to the complex leadership theories. Bottom-up

behavior is accepted by complex leadership theories contrary to the traditional

leadership theories. Leaders are encouraged to control their temper under the

complex leadership theories. They are supposed to control systems to ensure

emergent issues are dealt with amicably (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2002).

Complexity leadership admits informal systems within the organization and

tries to simplify complex organizational systems. This is achieved by creating a small

difference between leaders and their followers. As such the distinction between

leaders and followers is blurred by creating an informal structure of operating

activities within an organization. Leadership is seen as an informal system of control

where superiors interact freely with their juniors. There are no formal barriers of

communication which may hinder people from all levels to interact with each other

(Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2002).

Complex leaders have the capacity to distribute control over resources to all

sectors of the organization. Such leaders are said to have distribution intelligence

such that they can determine the best strategies for distributing the resources

available to them. Through distribution intelligence, complex leaders are able to

connect between diverse issues within the organization. In the modern days,

organizations have become complex and there is need to combine all resources to
 5

achieve success. Complex leaders are required in the modern organization to carry

out complex processes involved in the organization (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2002).

Traditional leadership theories accept the use of commands and controls in

achieving goals within the organization. On the other hand, complex leadership

theories support the reduction of controls and commands to ensure the entire system

has minimum controls. Complex leaders provide their followers with adequate

support and freedom to conduct their activities in their own ways. Complex

leadership has led to the emergence of innovative ideas of conducting activities

within the organization (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2002).The need for innovative ideas has

generated the need for a system that allows people in an organization to have a

favourable environment for developing these innovations.

The great man theory of leadership differs from the complexity leadership

theory in that great man theory perceives leadership as a trait that a person is born

with and which is genetic in nature. On the other hand, complexity theory supports

that leadership is acquired by experiencing some aspects in life. Great man theory

proposes that leaders are specifically males while the complexity leadership theory

supports that anybody can become a leader irrespective of their gender. According

to great man theory, leaders are special people with special qualities and are

destined to lead. Complexity theory supports that leaders are ordinary people who

acquire leadership skills through experiences in life (Bolden et al., 2003).

The trait leadership theory is similar to the great man leadership theory

because it accepts the fact that leaders have unique traits. This theory was applied

in the military to describe specific leadership traits that the soldiers must possess.

People with specific characteristics could be selected, trained, and recruited into

leadership roles within the military. On the contrary, complexity leadership theory
 6

does not support the fact that leaders must possess specific qualities. In fact

anybody can become a leader as far as the proper environment is provided to

support his/her leadership skills (Bolden et al., 2003).

Transactional leadership theories explain that there is a contractual

relationship between the leader and the follower such that there are some rewards

and recognition acquired when the two parties co-exist. The relationship between the

leader and the follower is a mutual one because both parties aim at achieving

benefits from the contract. On the other hand, complexity leadership theory does not

establish a mutual relationship between the leader and the followers but instead the

two parties are perceived to contribute willingly for the benefit of the organization

(Bolden et al., 2003). It is not in all situations that the leader and the follower will

benefit from the relationship.

Similarities between complexity leadership theories and traditional leadership

Great man theory provides that leaders are people with special qualities and

that they are able to guide their followers to achieve goals of the organization.

Similarly, complexity leadership theory supports that leaders must be unique from

their followers and they should possess skills which are outstanding so that they can

influence their followers to contribute willingly to the goals and objectives of the

organization (Bolden et al., 2003). By being unique, leaders show superior qualities

than their followers and this provides them with power to influence others. Leaders

are said to have the ability to control the decisions of others and it is this skill that

makes them unique.

According to situational leadership theory, leaders apply varied skills

depending on the situation being experienced in the organization. Leaders have the

freedom to decide the actions to take in different circumstances and this requires
 7

them to have adequate knowledge about performing different activities in the

organization (Marriner-Tomey, 2004). Different levels of the organization require

different leadership styles. Similarly, the complexity leadership theory requires all

formal systems to be removed in an organization for effective implementation of

goals. Informal systems are accepted by the complexity leadership theory such that

leaders can use these systems to reduce bureaucracy for effectiveness and

efficiency in achieving goals and objectives. Behavioural leadership theories focus

on what leaders do instead of their qualities. On the other hand, complexity

leadership theories explain that it is the acts of people that determine whether they

are leaders or not. The aspect of qualities that leaders have is not closely associated

with leadership in both theories (Bolden et al., 2003).

Transformational leadership theory provides that a leader should aim at

inspiring the followers. The leader must have passion and vision to achieve great

things by influencing his/her followers. They must provide enthusiasm and energy to

the followers. Similarly, the complexity leadership theory requires leaders to be

proactive and to create energy at the organization by influencing all the stakeholders

to contribute collectively to the goals which have been agreed upon. The theory

suggests that leaders aim at transforming the current status of the organization by

encouraging the followers to have passion for change. The overall aim of the two

theories is to bring change within the organization by developing systems which

transform the status quo and bringing new and innovative strategies (Hacker, &

Roberts, 2003).

Advantages of complexity leadership theory

It is important to note that complexity leadership theory provides a modern

approach to solving problems within the organization. Organizational systems

 8

change and new challenges are encountered in each activity. This requires the

application of leadership processes which are relevant with the new changes in an

organization. For example, modern workplaces have experienced cultural diversity

and this requires developing better strategies of uniting all people to avoid conflicts

(Yammarino & Dansereau, 2006).

Complexity theory encourages employees to be innovative about the

processes they undertake to produce goods and services in the organization. This

has led to product differentiation in many organizations and companies have

achieved competitive advantage from the innovations developed by employees.

Complex leaders encourage their followers to use the available technologies to

develop innovative products to manufacture a wide variety of products (Yammarino

& Dansereau, 2006).

Complexity leadership has helped solve problems arising in organizations due

to globalization effect. Since globalization started having effect on the organizations,

many leaders have encountered problems relating to cultural diversity. Complexity

leadership helps managers solve the cultural conflicts within the organizations.

Disadvantages of complexity leadership theory

The theory introduces informal systems within the organization as a way of

achieving goals and objectives. These informal systems may create conflicts with the

formal systems because they bring different approaches towards the management of

resources. Informal processes are not legitimate and can cause failure in some

systems which require formalities (Yammarino & Dansereau, 2006). For example,

giving employees the freedom to perform duties in their own way as a way of

encouraging innovation brings with it a laisser-faire management system which can

create a lot of loopholes in managing resources within the organization.

 9

According to Yammarino and Dansereau (2006, p. 444) “complexity

leadership theory is deficit as a model of organizational reality.” This means that this

theory exists only in theory and cannot be practically utilized in organizations. The

theory provides an ideal framework of performing business within an organization

and this cannot be achieved in all situations. Yammarino and Dansereau (2006)

opined that the theory is not fully developed to provide adequate guidelines towards

solving organizational problems. Compared to other theories, complexity leadership

theory lacks in some ways and cannot be fully relied upon as the main guideline

when solving problems in an organization.

Real life example of a complexity leader

Steve Jobs is the Chief Executive Officer for Apple Inc and has been able to

manage the company by applying complexity leadership style. Steve Jobs has

encouraged his employees to make use of the resources of the company to develop

innovative products which are competitive in the market. Apple has managed to

come up with new products in the market such as the iPhone, iPod, iWork and

others. Steve has managed to use cultural diversity of the employees as strength to

develop products which focus on the cultural aspects of the customers. If it were not

for the good leadership skills of Jobs, Apple could not have been able to withstand

the stiff competition from other companies in the industry such as Microsoft, IBM and

others. Apple has diversified its products in the areas of computer software,

computer hardware and electronics by the application of new technologies (Royston,

2009).

Conclusion

Leadership provides a person with the skills to work with people to achieve

the pre-determined goals and objectives. Complexity leadership theory has brought
 10

change in the organizations and traditional leadership concepts are no longer useful.

The new theory focuses on reducing bureaucracy and formal procedures in

organizations which may hinder people from achieving the goals of the organization.

Both the traditional and complexity leadership theories are similar in that they

emphasize the fact that leaders have a responsibility to ensure that their followers

contribute willingly to the goals and objectives of the organization.

 11

Bibliography

Angela Royston, (2009). Apple. Heinemann/ Raintree. ISBN 1432925210,

9781432925215

Ann Marriner-Tomey, (2004). Guide to nursing management and leadership. Elsevier

Health Sciences. ISBN 0323028640, 9780323028646

Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Manturano, A., and Dennison, P. (2003). A review of

leadership theory and competency frameworks. Centre for Leadership

Studies.

Beatrice Van Der Heijden, Silvio De Bono, and Stephanie Jones, (2008).

Leadership, change and responsibility. Meyer & Meyer Verlag. ISBN

1841262382, 9781841262383.

Changing mind. (2010). Great man theory. Retrieved November 06, 2010 from;

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/theories/great_man_theory.ht

Cherry, Kendra. (2010). Lewin's leadership styles. Retrieved 9 Apr 2010 from;

http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/a/leadstyles.htm

Craig, Nick. (2009). Coaching in leadership-Theory and practice: Authentic

leadership. Authentic leadership Institute.

Francis J. Yammarino, and Fred Dansereau (2006). Multi-level issues in social

systems. Emerald Group Publishing. ISBN 076231334X, 9780762313341.

Graeff, (1983). The situational leadership theory: A critical view1. Academy of

Management Review, 8 (2): 281-291.

Hersey and Blanchard, (1984). Management and organizational behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 12

Robert N. Lussier, (2008). Management fundamentals: concepts, applications, skill

development. Cengage Learning. ISBN 0324569645, 9780324569643

Robert N. Lussier, and Christopher F. Achua, (2009). Leadership: theory,

application, & skill development. Cengage Learning. ISBN 0324596553,

9780324596557

Ricardo S. Morse, Terry F. Buss, C. and Morgan Kinghorn, (2007). Transforming

Public Leadership for the 21st Century. M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 0765620421,

9780765620422.

Russ Marion, and Mary Uhl-Bien, (2002). Complexity theory and Al-Qaeda:

Examining complex leadership. Managing the Complex IV: A conference on

complex systems and the management of organizations, Fort Meyers, FL,

December, 2002.

Stephen Hacker, and Tammy Roberts, (2003). Transformational leadership: creating

organizations of meaning. American Society for Quality. ISBN 0873896106,

9780873896108.