Leadership: Responding to Complexity.
Research by Doctor Dicle Kortantamer
With the support of Doctor Nick Marshall and Professor Tim Brady
University of Brighton
Published: May 2019
This research has been conducted under the sponsorship of the APM, the findings of which can be accessed via the following links:
Research Summary: ‘Leadership: Responding to complexity.’
The aim of this case study is to provide a systemic leadership framework for responding to complexity that can support the continued capability development in the transformation portfolios of government. This case study is part of Project X, a broader research programme seeking to generate insights into major government projects and programmes.
This qualitative case study has sought to generate insights from project delivery professionals with significant experience in the delivery of the government’s transformation and service delivery portfolios. This research views leadership as an activity, rather than focusing on the competencies or styles of individuals holding leadership positions. This view, based on what the academic literature refers to as leadership-as-practice approaches, accommodates the contributions of the individuals appointed to formal leadership roles while confronting broader, systemic aspects of leadership such as alternative sources of leadership.
This case study report is based on 15 semi-structured interviews conducted with a cross-section of project delivery professionals working in the major transformation portfolios of two central government departments. The data gathered also includes informal interviews and documents available in the public domain. The analysis adopts the theoretical lens of routines as it enables the examination of both formal leadership activities and their improvisations in responding to complexity.
The framework developed as a result of the analysis comprises four complexity response systems made up of multiple leaders and structural elements, which span multiple levels and are able to dynamically adapt to emergence:
Bridging
Responding to complexities associated with integrating knowledge across different functions or organisations by developing trading zones.
Positioning
Responding to threats and opportunities associated with specific authority positions by structuring leadership roles and relationships.
Legitimising
Responding to the different evaluations of desirably, properness and appropriateness of the intended change, and how it is delivered by developing opinion formation systems.
Adapting
Responding to shifts in the context-impacting formal agreements produced at the front-end phase of projects or programmes through anticipation and shared leadership strategies. Responding to organisational changes to ways of working in portfolios, programmes and projects through translation strategies.
Drawing on insights from academic literature, this report also offers three areas of recommendations for further strengthening the framework:
Viewing leadership as an activity
This view can enrich alternative sources of leadership and broaden the repertoires of response.
Continuous learning and development
The report illustrates the unintended consequences or limitations of the framework and the opportunities for bottom-up learning, and recommends the adoption of systemic approaches to reflecting on and continuously developing the framework.
Developing the institutional conditions for strengthening the responses
Collective inquiry of all professional functions into responding to wicked problems and the paradoxical tensions underpinning the cross-profession interactions that can enrich the ecological conditions for the complexity response systems.