Adaptive leadership theory: Leading and following as a complex adaptive process by D.

Scott DeRue
INTRODUCTION:
Traditional, hierarchical views of leadership are less and less useful given the complexities of our modern world. Leadership theory must transition to new perspectives that account for the complex adaptive needs of organizations. In this article, Scott DeRue develop a theory explaining how recurring patterns of leadingfollowing interactions produce emergent leaderfollower identities, relationships and social structures that enable groups to develop and adapt in dynamic contexts. In describing this emergent leadingfollowing process, he attempt to shift the theoretical focus away from people as leaders or followers, and instead foreground the evolutionary value of a dynamic and fluid leading following process. He propose that leadership (as opposed to leaders) can be seen as a complex dynamic process that emerges in the interactive "spaces between" people and ideas. By emphasizing an interactive and contextually embedded process of leading and following in groups, this theory provides a theoretical basis for challenging the individualistic, hierarchical, one-directional and decontextualized notions of leadership that permeate the existing literature. That is, leadership is a dynamic that transcends the capabilities of individuals alone; it is the product of interaction, tension, and exchange rules governing changes in perceptions and understanding. We label this a dynamic of adaptive leadership, and we show how this dynamic provides important insights about the nature of leadership and its outcomes in organizational fields. We define a leadership event as a perceived segment of action whose meaning is created by the interactions of actors involved in producing it, and we present a set of innovative methods for capturing and analyzing these contextually driven processes. We provide theoretical and practical implications of these ideas for organizational behavior and organization and management theory.

Complexity Theory
Complex Adaptive Systems
Based on the principle of growth and evolution (high rate of change), control is dispersed and decentralized with simple rules and governance used to direct behavior. They are dynamic network of many agents acting in parallel and reacting to what the other agents are doing.

Complexity Leadership Theory

Built on complexity theory and expands the locus of leadership from the role-based actions of an individual to interactions that occur across the organization and down to the individual and team level. Relationships are not defined hierarchically, but rather through interactions across the organization or project the leader role is an enabler of change

Complex adaptive leadership

Complex adaptive leadership (CAL) is a complementary approach to leadership based on a polyarchic assumption (i.e. leadership of the many by the many), rather than based on an oligarchic assumption (i.e. leadership of the many by the few). Leadership in this theory is seen as a complex dynamic involving all, rather than only a role or attribute within a hierarchy. The theory calls for skills, attributes and roles which are additional to the demands of traditional leadership. The theory draws from complexity science and from complex adaptive systems theory.

Structured questionnaires Every week, the students have to answer questions about their consultation group meeting. These questionnaires allow students the opportunity to reflect on leadership, authority, social system dynamics, and strategy as demonstrated (or not) in their consultation group, the presented case and, to a limited extent, the large class. The weekly repetition of this questions foster the ways in which students not only respond but also start to frame the dynamics within their small groups and also the big class. Along the course, these weekly questionnaires vary the focus from observation to interpretation to action. Some questions from Action Questionnaire are; 1. In thinking about your interventions this week, were there differences between what you intended and the outcomes they produced? 2. Which of your interventions generated work, work avoidance, some combination of the two, or go nowhere? 3. In retrospect, did any of your past interventions for work by the group? 4. Identify one moment when you thought you had something worthwhile to say and you held back. What made you do so? 5. Identify one moment when you were able to hold steady (as distinct from holding back). How did the group react? 6. Were there pressures to give in and, if so, how did you withstand those pressures?