- Confronted with a task, and having less information available than is needed to perform the task, an organization may....increase its information-processing capacity [or] design the organization, and indeed the task itself, in such a way as to enable it to operate on the basis of less information. These approaches are exhaustive; no others are conceivable...It is a central theme....that through every change...[and] technological development that...one will remain superior....in virtually every case.
Martin Van Creveld, Command in War (1)
Van Creveld's rule is an important Aid to Learning. Moreover, it is readily translatable into implementation by adopting certain organizational principles. Van Creveld's book Command in War, published in 1985, is a classic. However, the rule is based not on the author's knowledge of the principles of nonlinearity, but on years of studying the problem of command learned in the "school of hard knocks" of history. In this sense, Van Creveld is, like Clausewitz, an "unwitting" nonlinearist, having neither the field nor the vocabulary available to him when he studied, pondered, and wrote. Yet, there is in this convergence a satisfying confirmation provided by powerful minds working independently from different source materials and approaches.
Van Creveld unravels his rule in a three step process:
- Confronted with a task and having less information than is needed to perform the task (a military) organization may...increase its information processing capability...(which) will lead to the multiplication of communications channels and to an increase in the size and complexity of the central directing organ.
Van Creveld's study of command convinces him, "that this approach is inadequate and stand(s) in danger of being self-defeating."(2)
The second of Van Creveld's iron rules for increasing the performance of command through the "drastic simplification of the organization so as to enable it to operate with less information" is like the first rule, also "inadequate and stand(s) in danger of being self-defeating." (3)
Confronted with insufficient information to carry out a task, Van Creveld's third rule states that a military
- organization may react by designing the organization, or indeed the task itself, to operate on the basis of less information, relying on the division of the task into various parts and to the establishment of forces capable of dealing with each of the parts separately on a semi-independent basis. It is a central theme...through every change...(and) technological development that the third one will remain superior...in virtually every case. (4)
Van Creveld identifies five requirements for success:
Certainly it seems that in our public life there are echoes of Van Creveld's rules in recent legislative and public policy initiatives. For example, in response to the accumulated evidence of disappointing results, a measure to reform welfare was passed and made law in 1996. It is interesting precisely because this legislation largely follows the Van Creveld prescription. Though certainly Congress never thought to reference Command in War, it still represents a "nonlinear" response to fix to a problem with deep linear roots, and goes by the term "devolution." Essentially, devolution decentralizes, thereby distributing uncertainty.
- [T]he law gives states broad latitude in fashioning their welfare systems. It imposes some restrictions in return for the lump-sum 'block grants' of federal money that states receive from Washington, such as barring most recipients from receiving federal money for more than five years and requiring states to put specified percentages of welfare recipients to work. But states have flexibility in deciding how to accomplish those things and are free to use their money to pay benefits as long as they wish. (6)
Therefore, the legislation contains a relatively broad sense of federal intent, and a minimum of specifics. Subject to these directives, the individual states are given waivers in order to encourage them to develop innovative and tailored means to manage the program. All of the elements are there. The emphasis lies on distributing uncertainty through lowered decision thresholds to the states, while modifying the basis of command from detailed specifics to a broader one, which establishes intent and expectations. The "what" is less closely coupled with the "how." That is, ends and means more mirror the reality of welfare as a nonlinear system, where causes and effects are separated in space and time. This arrangement allows the flexibility necessary to do the complexity shuttle better. Is it working? The Council of Economic Advisors released a report on May 9, 1997, which attributes about 40 percent of the drop in welfare cases to a near full-employment economy. However, most of the rest of the decrease is credited to the waivers and flexibility of the new law.
The Van Creveld prescription for command on the inherently nonlinear battlefield has, as the readings below show, found an independent, validating response in the management of private enterprise. Business people are adopting measures very similar to those found in Command in War. In the private sector, a measure of success has been realized through a combination of corporate vision statements (intent) and worker empowerment (lowered decision thresholds), thereby increasing productivity.
Stephen R. Covey is a major business writer and consultant to the corporate world. His books include The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and Principle-Centered Leadership. The following appeared as the "The Strange Attractor," in the journal Executive Excellence. (7) The writer certainly takes liberties. His concept of the Strange Attractor is enough to make any scientist wince. Nevertheless, it works to get his message across to the business community in a style that is effective in that setting. That message is very consistent with that of Van Creveld's Rule, translated from the military arena to that of commerce. The message is the same-distribute uncertainty. New MBAs out of the prestigious business schools may not use the same language, but the shared meaning is inescapable.
- Earlier this year, I spoke to a group of executives gathered at a ski resort in Whistler, Canada. After my presentation, I enjoyed a day of skiing. Observing the mountain from the base lift, I could see hundreds of people skiing. At first glance, it looked like total chaos. But after a while, I could see a beautiful pattern of harmony and order to the whole thing.
- Snatching order out of chaos is a result of what is called in chaos theory the "Strange Attractor," meaning that all individuals share the same purpose-to enjoy their day in their way, according to their level of skill, the condition of the snow, the steepness of the slope, who their friends are, what their plans are, and so forth. Even though I'm sure there were some accidents on the mountain that day, I never saw any.
- Now, imagine what would happen if some chief executive sat at the top of the mountain with a computer, programming in all of the variables and giving everyone orders on how to go down the hill. It would be chaos, true chaos, resulting in many crashes.
- Give Up Control to Gain It
- Chaos theory, one of the cutting edges of management thought today, essentially reveals a world that is characterized by a kind of randomness and a seeming absence of rules, where even small changes in the system produce huge amplified effects. You can't predict the effects, and you can't control them. But on deeper examination, starting at the subatomic level, you find a core order that is beautiful and harmonious.
- The significance of this principle in managing an organization is that if there is a Strange Attractor-that is, a common vision, sense of meaning, strategy, and value system based upon principles which ultimately control anyway-then we will see the same effect in our organizations as I saw on the ski hill: people managing themselves according to the Strange Attractor. And self-management provides order, harmony, and beauty rather than chaos. Although it may look chaotic, because everyone is doing his or her thing, they are all drawn to and united by the Strange Attractor.
- The great paradox is that you're going to have chaos if you try to control people. You may appear to have order on the surface, because of your wielding the carrot and the stick to motivate people, but deep inside people will be going in a thousand directions, having different motives and agendas, because there is no Strange Attractor or common purpose.
- To get the Strange Attractor, you need a vision or strategic purpose that everyone can buy into and feel good about, and have a value system based on principles reinforced by a 360-degree information system and sustained by the universal conscience, the source of the mission statement. If you expect other people to buy into your mission statement, all stakeholders must be involved in creating it. This is what enables order to come out of chaos.
- What difference might the Strange Attractor make in relationships? People and teams become more self-managing, since they all have a common value system, a common strategic intent, and a common sense of vision. That commonness attracts them and enables them to bond. It lubricates all human interaction. People will subordinate their own egos and work for a higher purpose. They may work independently, just as a person may ski alone, but because of the context and the commonness, they achieve synergetic interdependence. In their work, they look for ways to collaborate or partner with each other. On the ski hill, for example, they watch out for everyone else, skiing a little defensively and with an awareness of where their friends and family members are on the hill. They may meet their friends for lunch at the lodge and ask, "How did you ski that run?" "How are you going to approach the next one?" "How are you going to handle that steep part?" "How are we going to help this one person who's just beginning?"
- Comfortable with Chaos
- Command-and-control managers or ski instructors who are used to order, discipline, and direction, might view the Strange Attractor with suspicion, if not outright terror. The main source of this raw terror is their own personal need for control. Many managers feel they'll lose control and things will fall apart. But their underlying paradigm of control is the very cause of their undoing.
- Today, the global marketplace is driving the demand for quality, and we can't produce quality unless we have shared values and strategic intent. Those who don't know the Strange Attractor will experience raw terror when trying to compete in the global marketplace. To be more competitive, they need to become more comfortable with chaos. And to do that, they'll need to break their addiction to control slowly, starting with their own immediate work group.
- To illustrate this concept of the Strange Attractor, I cite the following examples:
- 1. When AT&T divested, they were rule-infested, bureaucratic, and product-focused rather than customer-focused. When they went through divestiture, they had to go up against global competition and deal with enlightened customers who had many options. Within one decade, several divisions developed amazingly high levels of empowerment, unleashing talent and energy toward a common purpose or strategic intent.
- 2. Similarly at General Electric, a decade ago they were highly bureaucratic, rule-infested, and filled with policies and procedures in a highly politicized environment. Now, some divisions have remarkable levels of empowerment and customer focus, thanks to the Strange Attractor.
- 3. Saturn Corporation is another example of an organization with a significant mission statement which serves as a corporate constitution, as a Strange Attractor.
- How can you create an attraction that's so strong it's virtually molecular? It usually comes out of common vision and shared mission. Warren Bennis talks about four things: magnetic attraction, meaning, trust, and consistent example. Those four things define the job of the leader.
- My definition of leadership has evolved to this: the creation of a culture around a shared vision and value system based on principles. That's true leadership. If you leave any one of those elements out, you'll be less effective in your leadership. For example, if your vision and value system is not based on principles, you'll have a social value system, like Hitler had. If you don't create the culture, you may have an excellent vision and value system, as most organizations do, but your people won't own it.
- Exchange Between Old and New
- Let's imagine an exchange between an enlightened leader and a line manager who's still caught in command-and-control ways. The leader asks, "How's it going?"
- "We can't get good work out of these people," says the manager. "Their work ethic is terrible. No one will cooperate."
- The leader says, "Well, tell me about it."
- The manager moans, "Our customers aren't loyal; our suppliers try to take advantage of us; our employees are all looking out for #1; no one will cooperate and pull together."
- And then the leader asks, "What if everyone had the same vision, purpose, strategic intent, and values you have? What if everyone could share that?"
- "Oh, that would make all the difference," says the manager. "But we can't possibly achieve that ideal. There are so many different agendas. Everybody's working for his or her own reasons. They go at different speeds and have different timetables."
- And the leader says, "Well, look at the human body. The body has many different members, but because of the DNA chromosome structure of every cell, the entire body has the same Strange Attractor. We can reduplicate the entire body out of one cell. It's all there, like a holograph. What if we could have such a Strange Attractor inside this organization?"
- And the manager says, "Well, that's just not possible or practical."
- "Well, what are our competitors doing?" asks the leader.
- "I don't know what they're doing," says the manager. "I just know that some of them are eating our lunch."
- "Well, what do you think they are doing?" asks the leader. "Would you be interested in finding out?"
- "Oh, yeah, but don't give me any of this idealistic crap about mission statements."
- And the leader says, "Well, let's just observe the best of the competition Maybe we can benchmark a little to see how what we're doing compares with what they're doing."
- Gradually, by the force of competitive circumstances, the manager is humbled. Still he wonders how to get from here to there. "But I don't know what to do," he says. "what must we do to develop a Strange Attractor?"
- Now the leader and manager are honestly exploring together how to get a shared vision and mission, using an inside-out approach. They realize that it has to start with themselves.
- Fears Are Groundless
- In recent months, I have interviewed several executives who have worked with companies that have won the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award. I asked them, "What was the toughest challenge for you personally?"
- They all said, "The biggest, toughest personal challenge was to give up control." They feared losing control, but they found that their fear was groundless. They thought they were going to have chaos. The opposite happened.
- Again, this is the great paradox of leadership: you give up control, and you gain it. When you give up control and involve people in a genuine process of developing a common purpose and value system where you own the Strange Attractor, you begin to see everyone pulling together in the same direction according to their roles and level of skill. You move from procedural control to conceptual control. You move from external control to self-control.
- This is why humility is the mother of all virtues, courage the father, and integrity the child. Because humility says, "I am not in control. I control my actions, but principles and natural laws control the consequences of those actions."
- And the consequences are amplified ten-fold with other people. So, if you want to just transact with people, not have any partnering or any deep relationship, then its easy to just go ahead and do it. But know this: as soon as your competition has the Strange Attractor, you don't have a chance. You'll never last if you have only superficial relationships with a few people and your competitors have transformed relationships and partnerships within the firm and outside the firm.
- In a state of humility, you see yourself as part of a larger system. You recognize the dynamic forces involved. You see there has to be more give-and-take flow, more flexibility, because of the dynamic forces of the marketplace. Likewise, if you're going to partner with other people, you've got to understand their business requirements and cultural imperatives. In my work with the French company, Michelin, I found the whole key was to first understand the nature of their culture and to go with the cultural flow in order to achieve a common, strategic intent, that Strange Attractor. If you go against the cultural grain, you get the opposite result, the Strange Resistor.
- The leadership versus management distinction ultimately comes down to people versus things. You can use control and efficiency with things, but you need to build relationships with people. Unless people have some common sense of meaning, they won't have a Strange Attractor to unite them. In my own office, we have eight people who work with a high level of empowerment and autonomy. In fact, I rarely even show up. I purposely stay away from the office to be more productive in other high-leverage activities. I attribute the harmony and productivity of the office to the Strange Attractor-a common vision of strategic intent and a value system based on principles. Unless you have the Strange Attractor in your family, how are your kids going to manage themselves when you're not around? They'll do whatever they think they can get away with. Such self-centered behavior truly leads to chaos.
- When the Strange Attractor is present, people may actually be absent without impairing the operation. People can be doing their thing on "the hill," and while it may appear chaotic at any given moment if you take a snapshot, if you film the action with a motion picture camera, you see that it all fits and flows.
- [Reproduced by permission of Executive Excellence via the Copyright Clearance Center.]
This report from the April 11, 1997, issue of The Wall Street Journal (8) supplements (and perhaps balances) Covey. It is a fine case study to illuminate the importance that the properties of diversity and hierarchy have for a complex adaptive system to function effectively.
- Their eyes sparkled with enthusiasm-10 young, fresh-faced graduates, all smiling broadly on the cover of Fortune in May 1994. They worked for Architectural Support Services Inc., or ASSI, "a company" the magazine cover declared, "where the employees take charge of their future." And how. Within a year, all but two of them had walked out, embittered and divided against the very company that gave them control. "It was a revolt," says owner Vic Williams. Adds his wife and co-owner Joyce Roberts: "Instead of thriving, they quit." What on earth went wrong? Though their concepts were sound, the owners' execution was flawed in a few critical respects. Today, they are rebuilding the business on similar leadership principles, but without the costly mistakes of the past.
- Vic is an architect who developed a passion for computing more than 20 years ago. He and Joyce launched ASSI in 1985, providing computer-aided design services to architects. Joyce, with years of experience managing contracting projects, organized the jumble of floppy disks and the unevenness of work flows inherent in computer-aided design. Before long ASSI landed a big one, churning out construction diagrams for an up-and-coming retail chain called Home Depot. Intent on building the best staff possible, Vic and Joyce followed a rigorous recruiting profile, hiring hotshot young designers from the best schools. They built a look-alike staff of people between 21 and 23 years old, most from well-to-do backgrounds.
- Though gifted at organizing, Joyce was uneasy about her people skills. She immersed herself in books, tapes and seminars that appealed to her sensibilities as a rebellious baby boomer. Teams. Empowerment. Profit sharing. No hierarchies. It was her extensive use of these policies that put her and her employees on the cover of Fortune. Later the company was featured in a management textbook as a case study in modern management. But while the experts were fawning, the staff was fuming.
- Employees were expected to schedule their own jobs, but they were offended if Vic pointed out they were behind schedule. They were asked to deal directly with customers, but they chafed when customers made big demands. Says Joyce's sister Caroline, who helps run the business: "The staff was downtrodden, unhappy and looking for something to complain about." And complain they did. When the owners leased an extra-large suite so everyone could sit by a window, employees complained about the glare on their computer screens. When Joyce offered to send people to professional-development classes, they took it as a slight. It did not help that while being told they were in charge, employees had to work with Joyce's carefully designed work flows. The message from employees, Joyce says, was palpable: "Get out of my face." Joyce was heartbroken-and mystified. "It was like a soap opera," adds designer Tina Maxian, who is still with the company.
- The reality in retrospect, wasn't terribly complicated. Joyce and Vic had given their young staff plenty of authority but too little accountability. There were no formal performance reviews. No one was ever fired. They had created not a sense of fulfillment, but of entitlement. They tried to win people back over private lunches, but in such a monolithic work force there was little hope of solving the problem one employee at a time. So finally, in early 1995, "the walkout" began. In the space of a few weeks the entire design staff, other than Ms. Maxian, jumped to clients and competitors. Joyce, nursing her devastation, threw herself into the design work alongside Vic and began soul-searching.
- One evening at the end of an intense week, she saw a sign behind the carryout counter of a pizza parlor. "When all else fails," it said, "lower your standards." She did not take the message literally; she is too much a perfectionist for that. But it did provide the glimmer of an answer. Perhaps by hiring to a different standard-by emphasizing teamwork over training, personality over pedigree-she and Vic could build a new and stronger staff. So far it has worked. Recruiting at community trade schools instead of four-year colleges, they found people whose eagerness to learn exceeded their lack of training.
- Just as important, hiring from a wider pool created a more diverse staff. I don't just mean race, although that's part of it. The new staff includes a mix of locals and out-of-towners, some people well past their 20s, married people and singles, a former construction worker, an architect from Vietnam. Despite some beliefs to the contrary, a diverse workplace responds better to problems than a homogeneous one. A greater variety of backgrounds creates a greater variety of solutions.
- The new staff is also held more accountable. Today, ASSI conducts formal performance reviews. People who do not get along do not stay. But in most respects employees have as much say-so over their work as ever. Indeed, Joyce has lightened her touch, "accepting the chaos," she says, "and not feeling like I have to control every aspect." The better mix of employees makes that easier. "Now we have some people who take direction and some who provide leadership," she says, "rather than a lot of people the same age rebelling and feeding off each other."
- [Reproduced by permission of The Wall Street Journal via the Copyright Clearance Center.]
The Van Creveld prescription-design "the organization, or indeed the task itself, to operate on the basis of less information, relying on the division of the task into various parts and to the establishment of forces capable of dealing with each of the parts separately on a semi-independent basis"-is a practical and useful Aid to Learning. It provides for many parts of the system to work on a problem at the same time. It as a means enables us to do the complexity shuttle better, helps us keep our balance in the narrow range of cas, and helps us avoid the regions of order and disorder on either side.
| Coping with the Bounds Index | Foreword | Acknowledgments | Introduction | Part One Introduction | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Part Two Introduction | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Chapter 10 | Conclusion | Appendix 1 | Appendix 2 | Appendix 3 | Appendix 4 | Appendix 5 | Appendix 6 | Notes |