LWW/NAQ
NAQ-D-14-00004
December 2, 2014
11:40
Nurs Admin Q Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 78–83 c 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Copyright
Confluence and Convergence Team Effectiveness in Complex Systems Tim Porter-O’Grady, DM, EdD, ScD(h), APRN, FAAN Complex adaptive systems require nursing leadership to rethink organizational work and the viability and effectiveness of teams. Much of emergent thinking about complexity and systems and organizations alter the understanding of the nature and function of teamwork and the configuration and leadership of team effort. Reflecting on basic concepts of complexity and their application to team formation, dynamics, and outcomes lays an important foundation for effectively guiding the strategic activity of systems through the focused tactical action of teams. Basic principles of complexity, their impact on teams, and the fundamental elements of team effectiveness are explored. Key words: complexity, complex adaptive systems, teamwork, team leadership
I
T CERTAINLY COMES as no surprise that health care is becoming increasingly complex in this “post-digital” age. The burgeoning of the science, technology, and availability of health information, digital therapeutics, and practices make it virtually impossible for any one provider to have the full range of insights independently to make a sustainable difference in patient care. Indeed the vagaries and intensity of complexity science and its translation, “complex adaptive systems” (CAS) rings true as an overlay to the complicated and intensive interactions necessary to sustain health and therapeutics in the contemporary health care delivery system.1 Complex adaptive systems are simply collections of fluidly changing yet distributed intersecting and interacting elements and com-
Author Affiliations: Tim Porter-O’Grady Associates, Atlanta, Georgia; College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, Phoenix; College of Nursing, the Ohio State University, Columbus; and School of Nursing, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. The author declares no conflict of interest. Correspondence: Tim Porter-O’Grady, DM, EdD, ScD(h), APRN, FAAN, Tim Porter-O’Grady Associates, Inc, 195 14th St. NE Suite PH 501, Atlanta, GA 30309 ([email protected]). DOI: 10.1097/NAQ.0000000000000035
ponents that continuously react to each other and with each other in the environment.2 Frequent examples of CASs are often demonstrated by biological infrastructures, interacting ecological systems, human work groups, social networks, political systems, and even social infrastructure (Figure 1). Recent scientific work in all of these fields demonstrates that the multilateral, multifocal transdisciplinary, and interacting and intersecting problems and issues that arise in these systems are of such significant complexity that traditional industrial age modeling and problemsolving methodologies have been proven to be grossly inadequate to address them.3 In these more traditional environments, historic linear approaches were used in a way that reflected very simple rules of cause-and-effect. Generating out of the industrial age scientific view of the universe as a grand machine, the notion was that problems and issues could simply be taken apart, their rules and processes understood, and put together in a more effective way.4 More often than not these deconstructions and reconstructions were less than satisfying and often not successful. No matter how thorough linear processes were or how complete efforts at causeand-effect problem-solving were utilized, so
78 Copyright © 2015 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/NAQ
NAQ-D-14-00004
December 2, 2014
11:40
Confluence and Convergence
Ever Shifting External Environment
Informaon In
Economic Forces Simple Local Relaonships
Technical Forces
79
Innovation Forces Internal Organized System
Informaon Out
Social Forces Emergent Realies
Cybernec Posive/Negave Feedback Loop
Political Forces
Figure 1. Complex adaptive systems.
much of what existed in this problem-solving environment was consistently unpredictable despite rigorous intensive analysis and predictive capacity; environment, ecosystems, immune systems, and social systems did not behave in predicted ways. And, out of the world of quantum physics, strange discoveries were unfolding that showed at the very fundamental smallest level of particulate matter, rules which conflicted with causeand-effect, were highly complex yet demonstrated a constant adaptation to environment and circumstances.5 These characteristics are explicated within what is often called CASs. New language has emerged that better defines life and interaction in these complex systems. For example, agents in the system are simply every interacting component of the system. People are agents in a social system, fish and flora in an ocean system, cytoplasm and protoplasm in a biological system, etc— regardless of what system these “agents” continually act and interact with each other in a fluid and dynamic “dance” that is often unpredictable, unplanned, and apparently random.6 Still, out of this dynamic of apparently unrelated interactions, regularities and patterns unfold which will demonstrate the action of
the system, informs each agent, and feeds back on the system as a whole in a way that maintains a dynamic, purposeful, and living interaction. The introduction of new “agents” or the “morphing” of agents out of the interacting activities of existing agents creates a challenge or flux in the system causing it to recalibrate or rebalance in creative new ways and formations.7 The application of complexity science to human dynamics and to the team processes through which people work requires the understanding of a new language and the incorporation of that new language into the daily interaction and practices of contemporary leadership.8 The languaging of essential terminology helps inform both thinking and leadership action, advising preferable choices made by leaders in the process of team dynamics and helping to assure the effectiveness of team action. Some of the more common concepts essential to good leadership language in the leadership of team dynamics in CASs are emergence, self-organizing, coevolution, requisite variety, connectivity, iteration, simple rules, living on the edge of chaos, suboptimal behavior, and nested systems. Figure 2 details out each of the elements and characteristics of complexity as they affect organized human
Copyright © 2015 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/NAQ
NAQ-D-14-00004
80
December 2, 2014
11:40
NURSING ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY/JANUARY–MARCH 2015 Emergence
Requisite variety Co-evolution
Systems act/interact Random patterns Patterns inform behaviors Hidden order Synthesis of action Coordination of all Highly organized Continuous
Connectivity
Agents operate in systems Interaction drives adaptation Agent action forms patterns Continuous feedback loops Goodness-of-fit between agents “Fit” sustains the system Suboptimal
Self-organizing
Limited hierarchy Little command/control Little management Small planning function Continuous calibration Reconfiguring always Look for best “fit” Respond to environment Few volume metrics Needs always addressed
Iteration
Small changes “Chunking” Emergence-feedback loop “Snowball” changes
“Good enough” not perfect Thriving is “marginally” better Must compete better Conservation of energy Avoids excess: does enough Always does right for system
Every system separate Inherent part of environment Aware of structural change Aware of environmental shifts Respond to environment Response alters relationships Response creates more change Dynamic change “dance” Always interdependent Constantly interacting Simple Rules
Simplicity heart of complexity Dynamic and adaptive Rules affect all Govern consistently
Nested Systems
Highly diverse Demands variety Loves ambiguity Lives with the “grey” Supports paradox Raises creative potential Tolerant
Edge of Chaos
Chaos at the boundaries Avoids too much stability Never inert No dissipation “Rides” close to the edge Embraces risk Lives in potential Seek always to thrive
Systems always related to each other Small systems part of larger systems Interdependence aggregates systems Systems know who they depend on Systems assure their related systems succeed
Figure 2. Complexity elements.
behavior. Together with the notions which underpin CASs and the processes that support them, they provide the contextual framework for team effectiveness in contemporary post– digital-age organizations.9 All teams are deeply embedded inside of CASs. Teams are all agents in each system of which they are part and are in some way both affected by and affecting the dynamics, interaction, and success of these systems. Complex adaptive systems provide the frame for thinking about our relationship to the world and our interaction with others who make it up. These modes of thinking radically influence how teams work, their processes and effectiveness as well as their ability to achieve outcomes and to sustain their work. In fact, if teams are to be ultimately successful, understanding the complexity which influences them and drives them will be critical to that success.10
LEADERSHIP OF TEAMS WITHIN COMPLEX SYSTEMS Understanding team dynamics in complex systems is essential to assuring the success of teamwork. There are 5 main elements of team dynamics that are critical to the leadership of successful teams within the context of CASs. They are purpose, goodness-of-fit, setting the table, effective team processes, and evaluation of impact. While there are many elements of team dynamics and processes essential to good teamwork, these 5 are critical to team effectiveness within the context of complexity.11 PURPOSE There’s certainly nothing new about purposing team processes. Every team is driven by the reason(s) for which it is formed.
Copyright © 2015 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/NAQ
NAQ-D-14-00004
December 2, 2014
11:40
Confluence and Convergence In complexity science, however, leadership must further inform purpose through a deeper understanding of 3 critical influencing questions: (1) how does the purpose fit with the overall strategic imperative and correlating activities undertaken in the system directed to addressing those same strategies; (2) how responsive is the purpose to shifts and changes in the environment that emerge at varying points in the team’s processes; and (3) what metrics will the team use to objectively assess relevance, achievement of value, and effectiveness of the team’s processes? All team activity should be in some way directed to addressing and advancing the strategic imperatives of the organization they serve. The traditional failure of teams is often found in the fact that teams often take on a life of their own after they are formed and lose sight of their originating purpose and of the strategic imperative they were directed to address. In complex systems, a further complication is that teams often grow in numbers as they all attempt to serve a component of a strategic imperative. Because of their isolation from each other, teams often lose sense of that central unifying strategic theme. The result is often diffusion and fragmentation and sometimes an unknowing duplication of effort. It is important that a matrix of common team actions undertaken in response to a particular strategic imperative be maintained by leadership. An opportunity for inter-team interface and interaction must occur as a regular part of each team’s work processes. This crossreferencing of specific team action keeps all teams related to a particular strategy working in alignment and provides an opportunity for each team to support the work of all teams. This “purpose matrix” should be tied to each strategic imperative so that all activities related to it can be both coordinated and assessed for progress and impact. Another critical factor that affects the progress in successful teams is a fundamental flexibility and adaptability to shifts in the environment with concomitant adjustments in strategy. All goals established by an organization or team are continually bombarded with
81
incremental and sometimes substantive environmental shifts representing sociopolitical, technological, and economic variables and vagaries. Team leaders must periodically halt the work and progress of the team to assess their work relevance in light of the impact of these continuous environmental changes. Incorporating these adjustments in the team’s work processes as a normative expectation of team dynamics helps keep the team focused and pertinent and assures its work is both timely and relevant. Finally, to assure value and impact on purpose, the team needs to develop objective metrics, which measure the continuing degree of the “fit” of team processes to its purpose. Mechanisms that assess the trajectory of the team’s work between the “tightness” of the team effort with the strategy to which that effort is directed is vital to team applicability and value. Teams tend to take on a life of their own irrespective of whether they are fulfilling a particular intent. Teams must be regularly disciplined through the metrics that tie the team’s work back to its effectiveness in addressing the strategic imperative that drives it and to whether the team is actually fulfilling its purpose. Team leadership needs to use objective metrics such as these to inform team members of the viability and value of their work and to assist them in adjusting that work in a way that keeps member’s efforts centered on fulfilling the team’s strategic purpose. GOODNESS-OF-FIT The notion of goodness-of-fit originates from a statistical model that describes the “fit” of a set of observations. Traditionally, it reflects measures of discrepancy between observed values and expected values.12 In the case of teamwork, goodness-of-fit relates to how well the work of each team fits the aggregation of all effort in the fulfillment of a strategic imperative or goal.13 Generally, in complex organizations, addressing strategy requires a variety of organizational undertakings or actions. Teams address particular components of the strategy in a way that helps
Copyright © 2015 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/NAQ
82
NAQ-D-14-00004
December 2, 2014
11:40
NURSING ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
translate direction into specific actions in a manner that is comprehensive and thorough. The downside of this effort is that often the more components a strategy is broken out into, the greater the likelihood that 1 or more of these actions may fail to support the strategy. In fact, inaction or inappropriate action can actually negatively impact the other team components working to successfully advance strategy. In complex systems, any failure in any 1 component (or team) in the system ultimately leads to failure in the entire system. Thus, it is imperative for team leaders to be clear not only of the specific tasks of a particular team but of the collateral and horizontal interface of the efforts of each team with the efforts of all teams directed to any particular strategy. This collateral relationship between teams drives the importance of the leadership role in coordinating, integrating, and facilitating the effort and activity of an individual team in conjunction with the activities of all teams. Strategic team leadership should make team interaction with other strategy-derived teams an essential part of team functioning. SETTING THE TABLE In team science, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the initial structuring and formatting of team membership and interaction is as critical as is the work of the team. Because of the delicacies associated with team dynamics, balancing the personalities, characteristics, elements, roles, and functions of the team is a critical leadership capacity. It is important in effective team dynamics to assure that the team is configured in a way that advances the probability of success in the interlocking elements necessary to calibrate the team for that success. This is intentional formative work of the team leader and has a significant influence on the effectiveness of the team. Issues related to “fit” of team purpose, membership, processes, interactions, conflicts, and role dynamics are all considerations that inform team leader choice-making in the formative stages of team development. Balancing position with politics, personality with interaction, compe-
tence with contribution, role with relationship, and function with process, the leader carefully and critically constructs the team in a way that best fits with purpose and expectations and the nature of its work. It is often here in the early stages of team formation that the team’s effectiveness and success is tactically determined. EFFECTIVE TEAM PROCESSES Of course, there must be an effective relationship between the team’s purpose and the processes selected to address its work. Historically, there has been a focus on particular or specific team processes that demonstrate good teamwork. However, approach and team processes must be as carefully assessed and chosen as are team members. The issue for the leader is that process approach will depend on the characteristics of team membership and team dynamics must fit well with the unique characteristics of team members. First, and most critical is competent and effective team leadership and facilitation. Good team coordination and facilitation is not accidental and must be incorporated into the tool-set of effective leadership. Much of that leadership will initiate good process through assuring appropriate membership, constructive climate, role clarity, efficient and effective work methods, creative problem-solving, innovation thinking, synergy, renewal, celebration, recalibration, and evaluation. Whatever methodologies are used depends on the nature of the team’s work. Good team leadership will focus on each of these elements as a fundamental work-set evidenced by effective team processing. Human dynamics considerations also include in team leadership a high degree of adaptation with the capacity to quickly adjust to immediate and incremental shifts affecting both leadership practice and team process. EVALUATION OF IMPACT In complex and dynamic human organizations, the need for analysis and evaluation is
Copyright © 2015 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/NAQ
NAQ-D-14-00004
December 2, 2014
11:40
Confluence and Convergence central to the ability of the system to thrive. During the past decade, as information systems have become more effective and crossplatform data has grown in both depth and breadth, the sheer volume of information has now itself become an important aspect of organizational work dynamics. The issue for leadership is the ability to create utility around a growing and vast collection of databases and information sources, such that they can serve as an ongoing reservoir of resources that can immediately inform teams regarding their progress and impact. Just-in-time and concurrent data gathering and analysis is now an important part of the team’s work processes. Because of the complex array of tasks, functions, and processes and their needs to interface, intersect, and interact within and across teams’ work, the value of good analytics cannot be understated. Strong team leadership anticipates the need for continuous analysis and evaluation of process and progress ahead of impact so the relationship between work effort and desired impact cannot simply be determined but can also be refined in the more narrowly configured relationship between the two. This interaction between effective team process and
83
consistency with the goodness-of-fit of those processes to purpose and impact “tightens” and “disciplines” teamwork, reduces effort and cost, calibrates action with outcome, and raises the opportunity for success. CONCLUSIONS Team process in the digital world no longer reflects traditional understanding of team action and value. The growing and deepening understanding of the characteristics and demands of CASs and growing understanding of the complexity which underpins them now encourages reconceptualizing and reconfiguring both the structuring and utility of team approaches. If anything, teams have become more important even as the variety of configurations from on-site work teams to innovative virtual teams demand a broader notion of how these teams are formed, configured, work together, and produce sustainable value. For the leader, these emerging concepts and insights are critical to the successful formation, functioning, and leadership of effective teams especially in light of the growing requirements of a transforming health system in an everaccelerating digital world.
REFERENCES 1. Porter-O’Grady T, Malloch K. Quantum Leadership: Advancing Innovation, Transforming Health Care. 3rd ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2011:xv, 528. 2. Yin S, Yin A. Applications of Complex Adaptive Systems. Chicago, IL: I. G. I. Publishing; 2008. 3. Best A, Greenhalgh T, Lewis S, Saul JE, Carroll S, Bitz J. Large-system transformation in health care: a realist review. Milbank Q. 2012;90(3):421–456. 4. Miller JH, Page SE. Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life (Princeton Studies in Complexity). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2007:xix, 263. 5. Worren NAM. Organisation Design : Re-defining Complex Systems. Harlow, England, New York, NY: Pearson; 2012:xxi, 266. 6. Goldstein J, Hazy JK, Lichtenstein BB. Complexity and The Nexus of Leadership: Leveraging Nonlinear Science to Create Ecologies of Innovation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2010:213. 7. Stacey R. Complexity and the Experience of Leading Organizations. New York, NY: Routledge; 2007.
8. Stacey RD, Griffin D. Complexity and the Experience of Values, Conflict and Compromise in Organizations. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge; 2008. 9. Fryer P. What are complex adaptive systems. http://www.trojanmice.com/articles/complex adaptivesystems.htm. Accessed January 5, 2014. 10. Suchman A. Leading Change in Healthcare: Transforming Organizations Using Complexity, Positive Psychology, and Relationship-centered Care. New York, NY: Radcliff; 2011. 11. Liebler JG, McConnell CR. Management Principles for Health Professionals. 6th ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning; 2012:xvi, 536. 12. Fitzpatrick JJ, Whall AL. Conceptual Models of Nursing: Analysis and Application. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2005: xi, 356. 13. Dunin-Keplicz B, Verbrugge R. Teamwork in Multiagent Systems: A Formal Approach (Wiley Series in Agent Technology). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley; 2010:xix, 224.
Copyright © 2015 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
NAQ-D-14-00004
December 2, 2014
11:40
Nurs Admin Q Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 78–83 c 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Copyright
Confluence and Convergence Team Effectiveness in Complex Systems Tim Porter-O’Grady, DM, EdD, ScD(h), APRN, FAAN Complex adaptive systems require nursing leadership to rethink organizational work and the viability and effectiveness of teams. Much of emergent thinking about complexity and systems and organizations alter the understanding of the nature and function of teamwork and the configuration and leadership of team effort. Reflecting on basic concepts of complexity and their application to team formation, dynamics, and outcomes lays an important foundation for effectively guiding the strategic activity of systems through the focused tactical action of teams. Basic principles of complexity, their impact on teams, and the fundamental elements of team effectiveness are explored. Key words: complexity, complex adaptive systems, teamwork, team leadership
I
T CERTAINLY COMES as no surprise that health care is becoming increasingly complex in this “post-digital” age. The burgeoning of the science, technology, and availability of health information, digital therapeutics, and practices make it virtually impossible for any one provider to have the full range of insights independently to make a sustainable difference in patient care. Indeed the vagaries and intensity of complexity science and its translation, “complex adaptive systems” (CAS) rings true as an overlay to the complicated and intensive interactions necessary to sustain health and therapeutics in the contemporary health care delivery system.1 Complex adaptive systems are simply collections of fluidly changing yet distributed intersecting and interacting elements and com-
Author Affiliations: Tim Porter-O’Grady Associates, Atlanta, Georgia; College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, Phoenix; College of Nursing, the Ohio State University, Columbus; and School of Nursing, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. The author declares no conflict of interest. Correspondence: Tim Porter-O’Grady, DM, EdD, ScD(h), APRN, FAAN, Tim Porter-O’Grady Associates, Inc, 195 14th St. NE Suite PH 501, Atlanta, GA 30309 ([email protected]). DOI: 10.1097/NAQ.0000000000000035
ponents that continuously react to each other and with each other in the environment.2 Frequent examples of CASs are often demonstrated by biological infrastructures, interacting ecological systems, human work groups, social networks, political systems, and even social infrastructure (Figure 1). Recent scientific work in all of these fields demonstrates that the multilateral, multifocal transdisciplinary, and interacting and intersecting problems and issues that arise in these systems are of such significant complexity that traditional industrial age modeling and problemsolving methodologies have been proven to be grossly inadequate to address them.3 In these more traditional environments, historic linear approaches were used in a way that reflected very simple rules of cause-and-effect. Generating out of the industrial age scientific view of the universe as a grand machine, the notion was that problems and issues could simply be taken apart, their rules and processes understood, and put together in a more effective way.4 More often than not these deconstructions and reconstructions were less than satisfying and often not successful. No matter how thorough linear processes were or how complete efforts at causeand-effect problem-solving were utilized, so
78 Copyright © 2015 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/NAQ
NAQ-D-14-00004
December 2, 2014
11:40
Confluence and Convergence
Ever Shifting External Environment
Informaon In
Economic Forces Simple Local Relaonships
Technical Forces
79
Innovation Forces Internal Organized System
Informaon Out
Social Forces Emergent Realies
Cybernec Posive/Negave Feedback Loop
Political Forces
Figure 1. Complex adaptive systems.
much of what existed in this problem-solving environment was consistently unpredictable despite rigorous intensive analysis and predictive capacity; environment, ecosystems, immune systems, and social systems did not behave in predicted ways. And, out of the world of quantum physics, strange discoveries were unfolding that showed at the very fundamental smallest level of particulate matter, rules which conflicted with causeand-effect, were highly complex yet demonstrated a constant adaptation to environment and circumstances.5 These characteristics are explicated within what is often called CASs. New language has emerged that better defines life and interaction in these complex systems. For example, agents in the system are simply every interacting component of the system. People are agents in a social system, fish and flora in an ocean system, cytoplasm and protoplasm in a biological system, etc— regardless of what system these “agents” continually act and interact with each other in a fluid and dynamic “dance” that is often unpredictable, unplanned, and apparently random.6 Still, out of this dynamic of apparently unrelated interactions, regularities and patterns unfold which will demonstrate the action of
the system, informs each agent, and feeds back on the system as a whole in a way that maintains a dynamic, purposeful, and living interaction. The introduction of new “agents” or the “morphing” of agents out of the interacting activities of existing agents creates a challenge or flux in the system causing it to recalibrate or rebalance in creative new ways and formations.7 The application of complexity science to human dynamics and to the team processes through which people work requires the understanding of a new language and the incorporation of that new language into the daily interaction and practices of contemporary leadership.8 The languaging of essential terminology helps inform both thinking and leadership action, advising preferable choices made by leaders in the process of team dynamics and helping to assure the effectiveness of team action. Some of the more common concepts essential to good leadership language in the leadership of team dynamics in CASs are emergence, self-organizing, coevolution, requisite variety, connectivity, iteration, simple rules, living on the edge of chaos, suboptimal behavior, and nested systems. Figure 2 details out each of the elements and characteristics of complexity as they affect organized human
Copyright © 2015 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/NAQ
NAQ-D-14-00004
80
December 2, 2014
11:40
NURSING ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY/JANUARY–MARCH 2015 Emergence
Requisite variety Co-evolution
Systems act/interact Random patterns Patterns inform behaviors Hidden order Synthesis of action Coordination of all Highly organized Continuous
Connectivity
Agents operate in systems Interaction drives adaptation Agent action forms patterns Continuous feedback loops Goodness-of-fit between agents “Fit” sustains the system Suboptimal
Self-organizing
Limited hierarchy Little command/control Little management Small planning function Continuous calibration Reconfiguring always Look for best “fit” Respond to environment Few volume metrics Needs always addressed
Iteration
Small changes “Chunking” Emergence-feedback loop “Snowball” changes
“Good enough” not perfect Thriving is “marginally” better Must compete better Conservation of energy Avoids excess: does enough Always does right for system
Every system separate Inherent part of environment Aware of structural change Aware of environmental shifts Respond to environment Response alters relationships Response creates more change Dynamic change “dance” Always interdependent Constantly interacting Simple Rules
Simplicity heart of complexity Dynamic and adaptive Rules affect all Govern consistently
Nested Systems
Highly diverse Demands variety Loves ambiguity Lives with the “grey” Supports paradox Raises creative potential Tolerant
Edge of Chaos
Chaos at the boundaries Avoids too much stability Never inert No dissipation “Rides” close to the edge Embraces risk Lives in potential Seek always to thrive
Systems always related to each other Small systems part of larger systems Interdependence aggregates systems Systems know who they depend on Systems assure their related systems succeed
Figure 2. Complexity elements.
behavior. Together with the notions which underpin CASs and the processes that support them, they provide the contextual framework for team effectiveness in contemporary post– digital-age organizations.9 All teams are deeply embedded inside of CASs. Teams are all agents in each system of which they are part and are in some way both affected by and affecting the dynamics, interaction, and success of these systems. Complex adaptive systems provide the frame for thinking about our relationship to the world and our interaction with others who make it up. These modes of thinking radically influence how teams work, their processes and effectiveness as well as their ability to achieve outcomes and to sustain their work. In fact, if teams are to be ultimately successful, understanding the complexity which influences them and drives them will be critical to that success.10
LEADERSHIP OF TEAMS WITHIN COMPLEX SYSTEMS Understanding team dynamics in complex systems is essential to assuring the success of teamwork. There are 5 main elements of team dynamics that are critical to the leadership of successful teams within the context of CASs. They are purpose, goodness-of-fit, setting the table, effective team processes, and evaluation of impact. While there are many elements of team dynamics and processes essential to good teamwork, these 5 are critical to team effectiveness within the context of complexity.11 PURPOSE There’s certainly nothing new about purposing team processes. Every team is driven by the reason(s) for which it is formed.
Copyright © 2015 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/NAQ
NAQ-D-14-00004
December 2, 2014
11:40
Confluence and Convergence In complexity science, however, leadership must further inform purpose through a deeper understanding of 3 critical influencing questions: (1) how does the purpose fit with the overall strategic imperative and correlating activities undertaken in the system directed to addressing those same strategies; (2) how responsive is the purpose to shifts and changes in the environment that emerge at varying points in the team’s processes; and (3) what metrics will the team use to objectively assess relevance, achievement of value, and effectiveness of the team’s processes? All team activity should be in some way directed to addressing and advancing the strategic imperatives of the organization they serve. The traditional failure of teams is often found in the fact that teams often take on a life of their own after they are formed and lose sight of their originating purpose and of the strategic imperative they were directed to address. In complex systems, a further complication is that teams often grow in numbers as they all attempt to serve a component of a strategic imperative. Because of their isolation from each other, teams often lose sense of that central unifying strategic theme. The result is often diffusion and fragmentation and sometimes an unknowing duplication of effort. It is important that a matrix of common team actions undertaken in response to a particular strategic imperative be maintained by leadership. An opportunity for inter-team interface and interaction must occur as a regular part of each team’s work processes. This crossreferencing of specific team action keeps all teams related to a particular strategy working in alignment and provides an opportunity for each team to support the work of all teams. This “purpose matrix” should be tied to each strategic imperative so that all activities related to it can be both coordinated and assessed for progress and impact. Another critical factor that affects the progress in successful teams is a fundamental flexibility and adaptability to shifts in the environment with concomitant adjustments in strategy. All goals established by an organization or team are continually bombarded with
81
incremental and sometimes substantive environmental shifts representing sociopolitical, technological, and economic variables and vagaries. Team leaders must periodically halt the work and progress of the team to assess their work relevance in light of the impact of these continuous environmental changes. Incorporating these adjustments in the team’s work processes as a normative expectation of team dynamics helps keep the team focused and pertinent and assures its work is both timely and relevant. Finally, to assure value and impact on purpose, the team needs to develop objective metrics, which measure the continuing degree of the “fit” of team processes to its purpose. Mechanisms that assess the trajectory of the team’s work between the “tightness” of the team effort with the strategy to which that effort is directed is vital to team applicability and value. Teams tend to take on a life of their own irrespective of whether they are fulfilling a particular intent. Teams must be regularly disciplined through the metrics that tie the team’s work back to its effectiveness in addressing the strategic imperative that drives it and to whether the team is actually fulfilling its purpose. Team leadership needs to use objective metrics such as these to inform team members of the viability and value of their work and to assist them in adjusting that work in a way that keeps member’s efforts centered on fulfilling the team’s strategic purpose. GOODNESS-OF-FIT The notion of goodness-of-fit originates from a statistical model that describes the “fit” of a set of observations. Traditionally, it reflects measures of discrepancy between observed values and expected values.12 In the case of teamwork, goodness-of-fit relates to how well the work of each team fits the aggregation of all effort in the fulfillment of a strategic imperative or goal.13 Generally, in complex organizations, addressing strategy requires a variety of organizational undertakings or actions. Teams address particular components of the strategy in a way that helps
Copyright © 2015 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/NAQ
82
NAQ-D-14-00004
December 2, 2014
11:40
NURSING ADMINISTRATION QUARTERLY/JANUARY–MARCH 2015
translate direction into specific actions in a manner that is comprehensive and thorough. The downside of this effort is that often the more components a strategy is broken out into, the greater the likelihood that 1 or more of these actions may fail to support the strategy. In fact, inaction or inappropriate action can actually negatively impact the other team components working to successfully advance strategy. In complex systems, any failure in any 1 component (or team) in the system ultimately leads to failure in the entire system. Thus, it is imperative for team leaders to be clear not only of the specific tasks of a particular team but of the collateral and horizontal interface of the efforts of each team with the efforts of all teams directed to any particular strategy. This collateral relationship between teams drives the importance of the leadership role in coordinating, integrating, and facilitating the effort and activity of an individual team in conjunction with the activities of all teams. Strategic team leadership should make team interaction with other strategy-derived teams an essential part of team functioning. SETTING THE TABLE In team science, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the initial structuring and formatting of team membership and interaction is as critical as is the work of the team. Because of the delicacies associated with team dynamics, balancing the personalities, characteristics, elements, roles, and functions of the team is a critical leadership capacity. It is important in effective team dynamics to assure that the team is configured in a way that advances the probability of success in the interlocking elements necessary to calibrate the team for that success. This is intentional formative work of the team leader and has a significant influence on the effectiveness of the team. Issues related to “fit” of team purpose, membership, processes, interactions, conflicts, and role dynamics are all considerations that inform team leader choice-making in the formative stages of team development. Balancing position with politics, personality with interaction, compe-
tence with contribution, role with relationship, and function with process, the leader carefully and critically constructs the team in a way that best fits with purpose and expectations and the nature of its work. It is often here in the early stages of team formation that the team’s effectiveness and success is tactically determined. EFFECTIVE TEAM PROCESSES Of course, there must be an effective relationship between the team’s purpose and the processes selected to address its work. Historically, there has been a focus on particular or specific team processes that demonstrate good teamwork. However, approach and team processes must be as carefully assessed and chosen as are team members. The issue for the leader is that process approach will depend on the characteristics of team membership and team dynamics must fit well with the unique characteristics of team members. First, and most critical is competent and effective team leadership and facilitation. Good team coordination and facilitation is not accidental and must be incorporated into the tool-set of effective leadership. Much of that leadership will initiate good process through assuring appropriate membership, constructive climate, role clarity, efficient and effective work methods, creative problem-solving, innovation thinking, synergy, renewal, celebration, recalibration, and evaluation. Whatever methodologies are used depends on the nature of the team’s work. Good team leadership will focus on each of these elements as a fundamental work-set evidenced by effective team processing. Human dynamics considerations also include in team leadership a high degree of adaptation with the capacity to quickly adjust to immediate and incremental shifts affecting both leadership practice and team process. EVALUATION OF IMPACT In complex and dynamic human organizations, the need for analysis and evaluation is
Copyright © 2015 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/NAQ
NAQ-D-14-00004
December 2, 2014
11:40
Confluence and Convergence central to the ability of the system to thrive. During the past decade, as information systems have become more effective and crossplatform data has grown in both depth and breadth, the sheer volume of information has now itself become an important aspect of organizational work dynamics. The issue for leadership is the ability to create utility around a growing and vast collection of databases and information sources, such that they can serve as an ongoing reservoir of resources that can immediately inform teams regarding their progress and impact. Just-in-time and concurrent data gathering and analysis is now an important part of the team’s work processes. Because of the complex array of tasks, functions, and processes and their needs to interface, intersect, and interact within and across teams’ work, the value of good analytics cannot be understated. Strong team leadership anticipates the need for continuous analysis and evaluation of process and progress ahead of impact so the relationship between work effort and desired impact cannot simply be determined but can also be refined in the more narrowly configured relationship between the two. This interaction between effective team process and
83
consistency with the goodness-of-fit of those processes to purpose and impact “tightens” and “disciplines” teamwork, reduces effort and cost, calibrates action with outcome, and raises the opportunity for success. CONCLUSIONS Team process in the digital world no longer reflects traditional understanding of team action and value. The growing and deepening understanding of the characteristics and demands of CASs and growing understanding of the complexity which underpins them now encourages reconceptualizing and reconfiguring both the structuring and utility of team approaches. If anything, teams have become more important even as the variety of configurations from on-site work teams to innovative virtual teams demand a broader notion of how these teams are formed, configured, work together, and produce sustainable value. For the leader, these emerging concepts and insights are critical to the successful formation, functioning, and leadership of effective teams especially in light of the growing requirements of a transforming health system in an everaccelerating digital world.
REFERENCES 1. Porter-O’Grady T, Malloch K. Quantum Leadership: Advancing Innovation, Transforming Health Care. 3rd ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2011:xv, 528. 2. Yin S, Yin A. Applications of Complex Adaptive Systems. Chicago, IL: I. G. I. Publishing; 2008. 3. Best A, Greenhalgh T, Lewis S, Saul JE, Carroll S, Bitz J. Large-system transformation in health care: a realist review. Milbank Q. 2012;90(3):421–456. 4. Miller JH, Page SE. Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life (Princeton Studies in Complexity). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2007:xix, 263. 5. Worren NAM. Organisation Design : Re-defining Complex Systems. Harlow, England, New York, NY: Pearson; 2012:xxi, 266. 6. Goldstein J, Hazy JK, Lichtenstein BB. Complexity and The Nexus of Leadership: Leveraging Nonlinear Science to Create Ecologies of Innovation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2010:213. 7. Stacey R. Complexity and the Experience of Leading Organizations. New York, NY: Routledge; 2007.
8. Stacey RD, Griffin D. Complexity and the Experience of Values, Conflict and Compromise in Organizations. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge; 2008. 9. Fryer P. What are complex adaptive systems. http://www.trojanmice.com/articles/complex adaptivesystems.htm. Accessed January 5, 2014. 10. Suchman A. Leading Change in Healthcare: Transforming Organizations Using Complexity, Positive Psychology, and Relationship-centered Care. New York, NY: Radcliff; 2011. 11. Liebler JG, McConnell CR. Management Principles for Health Professionals. 6th ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning; 2012:xvi, 536. 12. Fitzpatrick JJ, Whall AL. Conceptual Models of Nursing: Analysis and Application. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2005: xi, 356. 13. Dunin-Keplicz B, Verbrugge R. Teamwork in Multiagent Systems: A Formal Approach (Wiley Series in Agent Technology). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley; 2010:xix, 224.
Copyright © 2015 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
