Chaos and Calm

So I was reading this article some weeks ago in which the author posited that leaders need to be both 'clarity agents' and 'chaos double agents'.  I heard what the author was saying, but I really didn't quite agree.  Basically the author was saying that good leaders should create both clarity and chaos in their organizations as circumstances merit.  According to Mr. Dunbar the author of the article Clarity Agents and Chaos Double Agents, when we live in an environment of "volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity" (VUCA as he calls it), we need our leaders to create chaos when there is too much calm.

My problem with this notion isn't the philosophy of it, so much as it is the language of it.  It's great marketing/branding to have this almost alliterative title, but I reject the idea of 'chaos'.  Words have power and alliteration aside, another word (one with a less pejorative connotation), might just make for a deeper understanding of what the author is trying to convey.

Here's what my favorite online dictionary says about the word 'chaos'.

1. state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order
2. any confused, disorderly mass: a chaos of meaningless phrases 
3. the infinity of space or formless matter supposed to have preceded the existence of the ordered universe.

Synonyms offered for 'chaos' include: disarray, jumble, turmoil.  Related words include such lovely choices as bedlam, pandemonium. Who really wants to be associated with 'pandemonium' or the creation thereof?

To suggest that a leader deliberately create this thing called 'chaos' in her organization, implies that there is no other way to avoid becoming mired in a comfortable status quo.  According to Dunbar, "the enemy of improvement in performance and enabling the ability to innovate is being comfortable and allowing the status quo to maintain. In the future, successful organizations will be defined by leaders that are disruptive and creative."  While he will get no argument from me on the underlying premise of his thought, it is the use of those last two words together that makes me nervous.  Disruptive and creative?  Therein lies the very pejorative connotation I'm talking about.

I don't think it's playing semantic games to say that to use the word 'chaos' is to lend further credence to the notion that those who would seek to challenge the status quo (that's a better 'c' word right there), are necessarily being 'disruptive' (per dictionary.com = causing trouble, confusion).  The problem with this thinking is that it automatically presumes the transcendence of the existing state and subtly suggests that any challenges to same are necessarily mischievous in their intent.  Isn't there sufficient evidence abroad that status quos need to be challenged?  Moreover, the idea of leader as challenger of settled states also subtly reinforces the age old idea, that only leaders may challenge.  Other sources of challenge, from persons not granted fiat to do so, can be viewed as 'disruptions'.  That's the kind of thinking that entrenches stable states and leads to the eventual demise of previously thriving businesses.

In my response to the author, I wrote that the status quo is to be feared and that organizations and their leaders would do well to entertain ideas from everywhere and anywhere - both within and without their organizations.  Yes, it would be wonderful to have a leader who saw the stable state as problematic, but that isn't always the case.  Further, sometimes it is the leader him/herself, who is least interested in changing the way things are done.  Rather than look to the leader for challenge, an organization needs to create an environment where everyone from top to bottom, is seeking improvement all the time and feels comfortable offering a different perspective.  When the only lens through which different perspectives is viewed is the lens of 'creating chaos', you can be pretty sure there won't be much chaos created.

Words harm, words restrict and ultimately, words can kill action....and organizations.

No carnival mentality in passport delivery

I have never been one who thought that our (Trinidadian) “Carnival mentality” was necessarily a bad thing. Think about it.

Every year we have five months at maximum to produce Carnival bands replete with costumes of great beauty and intricacy, and we manage to do it. We also manage to have many Carnival fetes, all of which involve the fairly complicated logistics of managing live bands, sound engineers, lighting technicians, catering and bar supplies and multiple portapotties. Then there’s Christmas and all the “putting away” people do—purchasing new furniture, making new curtains, having old furniture varnished and/or reupholstered—all of it decided on, arranged for and completed in time for Christmas morning. Never mind the pastelle making, the sorrel making and well, you get my point. All these things we manage as if they were nothing and yet we, as a nation, are stymied by the production of a few hundred thousand passports? We are a nation of geniuses (both artistic and academic) and we cannot manage to establish a reasonable passport production process?You have to be kidding me! We could move thousands of masqueraders (wit nuff rum in dey head) around town but we can’t do this? Please!

But I have a(n) hypothesis for why this is so: it’s because it’s not a fete, it’s not Christmas “putting away,” it’s not Carnival Tuesday 5 pm with miles to go before last lap. Passports are just not that important. Take the Carnival fete. Feting is extremely important to our society. It is the oil that makes all hinges work. Passports, on the other hand, are just business and are therefore unimportant and unworthy of our best efforts. When a fete is bad, you hear about it. And guess what? Next time you take your fete business elsewhere. When it comes to passports, on the other hand, we know the whole thing is a hot, smoking mess but there’s only one game in town. You can’t exactly go to the competition and get your passport from a supplier who is using better systems and processes, nor indeed can you go to some other office where the service is better and the staff friendlier and more responsive to your needs.

Who is it that said in a kaiso “we like it so?” I think it was the Mighty Sparrow. He didn’t mean it literally, it was said very much tongue-in-cheek, but now I wonder if maybe he was right. Maybe we do like it like this. We are born into this chaos, we live with it and then some of us migrate and succeed. Maybe it’s best things remain chaotic, as they seem to make us better able to take advantage of organization elsewhere in the world. (That too is tongue-in-cheek...or is it?)

So what to do? I wish I knew. Right about now I looking for another country to belong to (to which some will say, “Well go nah,” having missed my point entirely) because this is so sad, so pathetic it brings tears to my eyes. Why the tears? Because I know we can do better than this (see paragraph one for evidence). The question for the sociologists is why don’t we want to? Why do we hate ourselves and each other so much that this chaos is the best we think we deserve? What makes us so undeserving of good systems and respectful customer service in any venue other than a fete or a mas’ camp? If I had the answer to that question I would be a rich woman indeed...and then maybe I could just pay the premium for expedited passport processing.