Complexity and COVID‐19: Leadership and Followership in a Complex World

As a complexity leadership scholar, the past year has been witness to what we and theorists in organizational sciences have saying since 1990s: world is increasing if are keep up with it, must apply new ways of thinking (Anderson, 1999; Stacey, 1995; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Traditional top-down ‘hero’ models help us know it like lead on an individual basis as manager having motivate inspire subordinate, or CEO position strategically. They do not, however, capture lived experience navigating complex world. For this better understand how enables people organizations for adaptability (Uhl-Bien Arena, 2018). The good news that businesses largely get it. decades forced business be lean agile. result, when pandemic hit, they were able pivot rapidly implement adaptive solutions challenges: remote work business, telehealth medicine, online education schools, expanded takeout ghost kitchens restaurant industry. bad public-sector political lag behind. Many still operate outdated governance systems mired bureaucracy cronyism against collaborating greater good, resulting countless unnecessary deaths traumatized healthcare workforce – consequences which will dealing years. all those who argue doesn’t matter, 2020 proves them wrong: can be, literally, difference between life death. In world, research practice focus enable leaders adapt more quickly face challenges pressures. first step understanding means need differently. Fortunately, lot about now. Complexity begins pressures, often form challenge problem a) there no known solution, b) together partnerships haven’t worked before, c) these characterized by conflicting views (i.e., high heterogeneity), d) agents interdependence such that, extreme cases, die 2017). When COVID-19 hit saw pressures everywhere, socially distance, governments lock down, school closures, safety concerns driving employees from home, around scrambling limited resources, including testing kits, ventilators personal protective equipment (PPE). research, raises many questions related adaptability. What followers react cope under pressures? example, why did some same organization respond well while others not? Research here could build Ahmadi colleagues’ (2017) findings regarding role promotion prevention managers’ exploration exploitation behaviours conditions complexity. Studies explore type psychological response typical leaders, turn responses fall back ‘order’ 2017) denying reality wishing away (e.g., Donald Trump’s repeated statements virus ‘magically’ disappear). Other studies consider equip resilience needed sustain significant extended periods second helping response. complexity, emergence dynamic. Adaptive emerged activated ideation processes entrepreneurial working search doing things, distilleries converting their facilities producing hand sanitizer; Elon Musk using his network financial resources acquire 1200 + China; hospitals turning crowdsourcing 3D printing address shortages; informal trading economy emerging consumer products shortages toilet paper). enabled, ideas develop scale into system generate new, even only temporary, order. bureaucratic organizing not norm. Bureaucracy stifles It does inhibiting efficiencies strong operational responses. Counter belief free-wheeling democratized, actually one keys bee colony ‘inventory control’ works coordination information coming outside trigger activate needed. This may centralized cases than democratic ones. marshal testing, masks, quarantines, PPE manufacturing) use operationalize large-scale China building temporary 1000-bed hospital constructed Wuhan just ten days). additional research. heavily impede ability complexity? Businesses had become agile due ‘adapt die’ pressure but insulated forces politicians lose elections ‘die’) lives on. How entrenched government administrative systems? Is possible bureaucracies change, harnessing Can being equipped mindsets, principles practices? Leadership researchers also grasp concept space model. process occur. happens individuals engage tensions change innovation, novelty, learning, growth) stability current performance, short-term results, status quo) through connecting outcomes allows advance operating. myriad examples naturally opening pandemic: accepting enabling move telehealth; university educational faculty, students parents agree upon teach online; executives approving supporting work. innovation was already present tech occurred mostly side loosen formal administration accommodate change. opened problems available working, seamstresses sewing cloth masks; schools setting drive-through food lines lost jobs; doctors nurses ventilator sharing became clear ‘the other option death’ (Rosenthal 2020). researchers, offers ripe opportunity providing academic evidence underlying Winston Churchill’s mantra ‘never let crisis go waste’. Churchill intuitively knew opens up, loosening window lasts long present; therefore, jump arises. Having mindset recognize capitalize open inject much-needed otherwise rigid systems. Finally, would remiss mention followership failed COVID-19. Without 2014). We extend say large extent, surrounding case followership. seen granted leader identities incompetent willing claim subordinate (DeRue Ashford, 2010), propping sycophant turned blind eye leaders’ lies misdirection. reflected populace act directives protect non-followership), conversely, eagerly rose support leader’s call insurrection. And selfishness pressured prioritize group’s needs at expense others. shows, acknowledge, co-creation. examining relational dynamic leaders/leading followers/following occurs particular time context), never complete picture leadership. Leaders alone problem. can’t label narcissistic toxic satisfied ‘leader’. look causes give rise destructive co-constructions. Failure behave serving own interests elevating empowering dysfunctional dangerous prevent occurring. If any lesson take 2020, social phenomenon relating co-produce its outcomes…for worse.