Advertisement

How and Why Effective Leaders Construct and Evolve Structural Attractors to Overcome Spatial, Temporal, and Social Complexity

  • James K. HazyEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter suggests an analytical framework that researchers can use to explore the dual relationship connecting intentional fine-grain interaction with course-gain structures and outcomes. On the one hand, it identifies a potential causal link between individual fine-grain action and resulting course-grain outcomes, and on the other hand, it clarifies the dual link that describes the influence of coarse-grain structure on fine-grain interactions. To do this, it introduces a putative force called structural attraction that influences behavior of individuals in consistent patterns within populations. The chapter posits that a mean-field model of structural attraction reflects a biasing force that influences the behavior of individuals as they use information that they decode from the ordered structure itself. It further describes three types of structural attractors, each exploiting a distinct conceptual symmetry that signals underlying simplicity in the environment. Physical structural attractors exploit translational symmetry to reduce spatial complexity. By doing so, these attractors make physical action more efficient and predictable. Dynamic structural attraction exploits periodic symmetries to reduce temporal complexity and make iterative dynamic processes more effective and adaptive. Finally, social structural attractors exploit symmetry within equivalence classes. This reduces social complexity by sorting people into formal categories as a means to make social interactions and task coordination within and among groups more understandable and predictable. Leaders can construct each of these attractor types from the fine-grain to the coarse-grain as a means to serve various individual and organizational purposes. The chapter closes with a discussion of the benefits and risks that arise from the construction and emergence of structural attractors and an exploration of the implications that scale-crossing properties of structural attractors imply for individuals and organizations.

References

  1. 1.
    Hazy JK, Backström, T. Human interaction dynamics (HID): foundations, definitions, and directions. Emerg Complex Org. 2013:15(4).https://doi.org/10.emerg/10.17357.b49794f57f1d3721cb1c501f05344d05
  2. 2.
    Sloman S, Fernbach P. The knowledge illusion: why we never think alone. New York: Riverhead Books; 2017.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allen PM, Strathern M. Evolution, emergence, and learning in complex systems. Emergence. 2003;5(4):8–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldstein J. Emergence, creative process, and self-transcending constructions. In: Richardson KA, editor. Managing organizational complexity: philosophy, theory, and application. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing; 2006. p. 63–78.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thomasello M. A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nowak M, Tarnita CE, Wilson EO. The evolution of eusociality. Nature 2010; 466(7310):1057–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rehmeyer, J. Insights into symmetry. Science News Online, May 4, 2008. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/insights-symmetry?mode=topic&context=43. Accessed 14 Jul 2018.
  8. 8.
    West G. Scale: the universal laws of growth, innovation, sustainability, and the pace of life in organizations, and companies. New York: Penguin Press; 2017.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fukuyama F. Trust: the social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: The Free Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hazy JK, Silberstang J. The emergence of collective identity as a means for creating and sustaining social value. In: Goldstein JA, Hazy JK, Silberstang J, editors. Complexity science and social entrepreneurship. Litchfield Park: ISCE Publishing; 2009. p. 447–70.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glaeser EL, Laibson D, Scheinkman J, Soutter C. Measuring trust. Q J Econ. 2000;115(3):811–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mahmoodi K, West BJ, Grigolini P. Self-organizing complex networks: individual versus global rules. Front Physiol. 2017;8:478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mahmoodi K, Grigolini P, West BJ. On social sensitivity to either zealot or independent minorities. Chaos Solitons Fractals. 2018;110:185–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang Y, Wang X, Zuo W-L. Research on trust prediction from a sociological perspective. J Comp Sci Technol. 2015;30(4):843–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mcpherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol. 2001;27:41544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zak PJ, Knack S. Trust and growth. Econ J. 2001;111:295–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kossinets G, Watts DJ. The origins of homophily in and evolving social network. Am J Sociol. 2009;115(2):40550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Surie G, Hazy JK. Generative leadership: nurturing innovation in complex systems. Emerg Complex Organ. 2006;8(4):13–26.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hazy JK. Leading large organizations: adaptation by changing scale-free influence process structures in social networks. Int J Complex Leadersh Manag. 2012;2(1/2):52–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hazy JK, Cürüklü B. Influence process structural learning and the emergence of collective intelligence. Collective intelligence. Boston: MIT; 2014. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.7547.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bak P. How nature works. New York: Springer; 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prigogine I. The end of certainty: time, chaos, and the new laws of nature. New York: The Free Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    MacIntosh R, MacLean D. Conditioned emergence: a dissipative structures approach to transformation. Strateg Manag J. 1999;20(4):297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hazy JK, Lichtenstein B, Demetis D, Dooley K, Backstrom T. Notes on the complexity of corruption. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting in Atlanta on August 7, 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Robert B. Willumstad School of Business ManagementAdelphi UniversityGarden CityUSA

Personalised recommendations