Practices of leadership contribute to managing knowledge, innovation and change in the

post-bureaucratic era.

The level of knowledge, innovation and change within an organisation is eminently

contingent upon the leadership practices adopted by a firm. It is argued that innovation and
high responsiveness to change is a key proponent in securing a competitive advantage in the
knowledge driven economy (Birkinshaw and Gibson 2004). I posit that complex adaptable
leadership systems propel innovation, advocate for change and promote intra-organisational
knowledge synergies. This essay will highlight the pivotal need for ambidexterity,
organisational learning and autonomous structures such as communities of practice within an
organisation. In each of these aspects I will discuss how a conflict between stability and
flexibility arises in the form of a need for balance between adaptability and alignment, the
oxymoron of organisational learning and the paradox of managing allegedly self-managing
teams (Birkinshaw and Gibson 2004; Weick and Westley, 1999; Wenger and Snyder, 2000).
This necessitates leadership to affirm such conflicts co-exist within the post-bureaucratic era
and view organisations as a complex adaptable system. I will assess how transformational
and complex leadership are post-bureaucratic responses to this. I propose complexity theory
of leadership enhances organisational performance by enabling an environment where the
multifaceted nature of knowledge, innovation and change can be successfully managed.

Hitt (1998, p. 218) states we are on the precipice of an epoch, in the post bureaucratic era
successfully managing knowledge, innovation and change is a major driver for growth.
Central to cultivating this growth as is embedding ambidexterity within the organisation, this
is achieved through organisations mastering adaptability and alignment (Birkinshaw and
Gibson 2004). The constant state of flux in the post-bureaucratic era offsets the balance
between adaptability and alignment. A heavy focus upon alignment boosts short-term
productivity, however can lead to potential failure due to low responsiveness to changes in
the industry. Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004) further propose leaders should endorse
contextual ambidexterity rather than structural ambidexterity, the former is achieved through
equal division of individual employee time between both alignment focused and adaptability
focused activities. Additionally, building contextual ambidexterity requires leaders to foster
both performance management and social support. An equally emphasised presence of both
will generate high performance organisational context, conversely a strong leadership focus
on performance management drives the organisations within a burn-out context. On the

1
opposing end a deficiency of performance management and surplus of social support will
lead organisations into a country-club context where there is high morale and employee
potential but minimal output and productivity (Birkinshaw and Gibson 2004). Leaders must
take into account the complex inter-organisational and extra-organisational factors achieve an
organisational context that optimises ambidexterity. Ambidexterity ensures a firms
responsiveness to change within the organisational environment, as a result this creates an
organisational identity that fosters knowledge innovation and change.

In addition to this firms must facilitate organisational learning to generate knowledge

synergies. Learning occurs through the dynamic process of knowledge creation involving
continual dialogues of tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). Josserand et al (2006)
recognise the importance interdependent networks within an organisation, empowerment of
employees and decentralised authority to increase organisational learning. Weick and
Westley (1999) unearth the concept of affirming an oxymoron manifested within the
organisational learning. They point out that organising inherently suggests stability and
well-defined limits, whereas learning implies variety and breaking down such limits. Thus,
creating an uncomfortable tension between interconnected components of organisational
learning, leaders must accept this oxymoron and construct an infrastructure for knowledge
transfer that is both stable and flexible. Consequently, organisational learning necessitates the
need for leaders who view organisations as complex systems and adapt accordingly in order
to flourish knowledge transfer synergies.

Supplementing this concept, communities of practice (COPs) are described as an adaptable

organisational frontier that thrives on knowledge to further innovation. COPs are self-
organising teams bound together by joint passion, expertise or a concern about a topic, these
teams seek to deepen their knowledge base in a particular area (Wenger and Snyder, 2000).
COPs provide a platform within an organisation to address higher level needs of the business,
to drive strategy, solve problems and develop innovative solutions (Wenger and Snyder,
2000). COPs breakdown organisational constrains and galvanise intra-organisational
networks that expedite knowledge transfer across all levels in an organisation and
consequently innovative solutions are often the result. Although COPs are essentially self-
managing Wenger and Snyder (2000) argue that they benefit from cultivation. This raises
another paradox within organising and managing these fundamentally informal structures. To
successfully benefit from such autonomous structures leaders must acknowledge this paradox

2
direct the COPs in reaching their full potential in a systematic way. In successfully
transitioning from bureaucracy to an innovation-driven economy, it is critical that leadership
supports adaptable systems like COPs that ameliorate ambidexterity, learning and innovation.
Managing ambidexterity, organisational learning and autonomous structures has a direct
impact upon leadership practices adopted by a firm. Leaders must embrace such oxymoronic
and paradoxical challenges of aligning flexibility and stability inherent to managing
knowledge, innovation and change.

Herman (2007) points out todays leaders need to become not-leaders, and urges
organisations to reshape leadership structures based upon a values-driven approach founded
upon integrity and empowerment. In today business environment, transactional leadership
practices indoctrinated within top-down paradigms of bureaucracy are being abandoned to
embrace complexity theory of leadership and transformational forms. Both models stimulate
adaptability, organisational learning and reap benefits of autonomous teams, however they
achieve this from extremely different perspectives (Marion and Uhl-Bien, 2002). Complexity
theory is impelled by interactions resultant of patterns between the components, and the
randomness connected with working with individuals in a dynamic organisation or system
(Greer-Frazier, 2014, p. 112). Complexity theory emerged out of a need for businesses to
breakdown organisational constrains and move towards dynamic systems that support high
performing organisational contexts, cater to the paradox of organisational learning manage
interconnected associations like COPs which enhances innovation. Complex adaptive
systems embrace a bottom-up approach where direct leader activities consist of efforts to
influence and direct cognitive employee behaviours within cohesive teams. Additionally,
complexity leadership is a recursive model, where leaders catalyse conditions which promote
innovation, collaboration, and the learning of complex information (Greer-Frazier, 2014),
rather than propelling a managerial vision. Within complex leadership leaders are viewed as
products of interactive dynamics, complexity theory recognises that leaders do not make the
system, it is made through a number of organisational factors of aggregation and emergence.
Consequently, complex leadership systems are an adaptable form of leadership, where
decentralised leader behaviours become conduits in achieving knowledge, innovation and
change.

Another component within leadership spectrum of the post bureaucratic era is

transformational leadership. Transformational leadership forms have consistently been agued

3
to promote innovation and change through leaders emanating behaviours of charisma,
intellectual stimulation, influence and individualised consideration (Bass and Avolio, 1993).
Transformational leaders exploit their idealised influence to propel their own vision and
manage their followers in a manner so that these subordinates buy into a particular vision
(Marion and Uhl-Bien, 2002). Whereas complex leadership endorses a bottom-up approach,
transformational leadership aligns with top-down leadership approach which is heavily leader
centralised. Conger (1999) notes that transformational leadership is reminiscent of great
man theories with a post-bureaucratic twist of leaders focused on the development of their
followers. Behaviours of transformational leadership embody aspects of managerialism
through internalisation of the leaders vision and this being sanctified by followers (Wray-
Bliss, 2012). Transformational leadership is leader-focused and control resides at the
discretion of the leader, coercion is masqueraded as empowerment, and this ultimately
advances managerial agendas. Transformational forms by focusing on the leader rather than
organisational processes diminish the distribution of knowledge and innovation within an
organisation. Complex leadership deviates away from traditional assumptions of hierarchy
and acknowledges that leader behaviours must be decentralised and permeate throughout a
complex system. Under complex adaptive systems what materialises is an organisation that is
a knowledge hub that generates learning, innovation and ambidexterity.

Through discussions surrounding a need ambidexterity, organisational learning and

autonomous structures like communities of practice this essay has dissected why complexity
leadership theory is a better response to the contemporary organisational landscape. To
sustain a competitive advantage in the post bureaucratic era, organisations must endorse
leadership that recognises organisations are dynamic and interconnected systems. This impels
leaders to change and embrace complex adaptable systems where ambidexterity,
organisational learning and interconnected associations like communities can flourish. The
paradoxical notion of organising requires a careful balance between permanence and
deviation. This demands leadership to move away from traditional assumptions of hierarchy
and control indoctrinated within bureaucracy towards transformational and complexity theory
of leadership. Complex leadership is a recursive model, where leaders catalyse conditions to
promote collaborative practices, innovation and learning of complex information as opposed
to transformational practices which are centralised only on a leaders vision and are
consequently exposed to negative effects of managerialism. Complexity theory of leadership
is a decentralised approach where leaders are viewed upon as by-products of intra-

4
organisational and extra-organisational factors and conflicting interactive dynamics. By
working within complexity, a high performance organisation is created that is a centre for
knowledge, innovation and change.

5
Reference list:

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. 1993. The implications of transactional and transformational
leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. Research in

organizational change and development, pp. 231-272.

Birkinshaw, J. & Gibson, C. 2004, 'Building ambidexterity into an organization', MIT Sloan
Management Review, vol. 45, pp. 47-55.

Conger, J. A. 1999. Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An

insider's perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly,

vol 10, no.2, pp. 145-179.

Geer-Frazier, B. 2014, Complexity leadership generates innovation, learning, and

adaptation of the organization, Emergence: Complexity and Organization, vol 16, no
3, pp.105-117.

Hitt, M. 1998, 1997 Presidential Address: Twenty-First-Century Organizations: Business

Firms, Business Schools, and the Academy, The Academy of Management Review,
vol 23, no 2, p.218.

Herman, S. 2007, 'Leadership training in a not-leadership society', Journal of Management

Education, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 151-5.

Josserand, E., Teo, S. & Clegg, S. 2006, 'From bureaucratic to post-bureaucratic: The
difficulties of transition', Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 19, no.
1, pp. 54-64.

Marion, R. and Uhl-Bien, M. 2002, Complexity v. transformation: The new leadership

revisited, in Conference on Complex Systems and the Management of Organizations,
Florida, pp. 1-18.

6
Nonaka, I. 1994, A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation, Organization
Science, vol 5, no 1, pp.14-37.

Wenger, E.C. & Snyder, W.M. 2000, 'Communities of practice: The organizational frontier',

Harvard Business Review, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 139-46.

Wray-Bliss, E. 2012, 'Leadership and the deified/demonic: A cultural examination of ceo

sanctification', Business ethics: a European review, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 434-49.

7
Reflective feedback:

The feedback for essay one indicated that in my essay writing structure I would have
benefitted from a direct introduction and conclusion that explicitly sates This paper will
outline and This paper has outlined. I took this feedback into consideration and was
clearer in the introduction and conclusion. I was praised on the body paragraph construction,
hence I emulated a similar approach to paragraph writing. The level of understanding and
critique was praised so in the second essay I attempted to go into even greater depth to ensure
the essay is well defined, demonstrates insight and has a critical perspective.

Another comment I received was that the contention I assumed from one of the articles, did
not fully reflect what the articles was saying in its entirety. I took this into account and
ensured that I was more through in my research process and read the literature more carefully
before drawing any conclusions.

I was more careful in my wording of my argument, in essay one I contended Leadership

needs a seamless method of transition in the post bureaucratic world. However, it was
pointed out that a seamless leadership is a bureaucratic goal I altered my argument
appropriately in the second essay to one that reflects contemporary organisational theory