Dave and other interested parties,
I am a great fan of Margaret Wheatley (have they made her a saint yet? ;-)) and her work. I teach sessions on leadership vis a vis chaos (as she expounds it) as part of my curriculum and as workshop sessions to various organizations.
One of the key focal points of my lessons is her point that chaos is not disorder but the absence of pattern.
I developed an exercise to bring out that point and some key points about goal setting, planning, and ownership. It is published in the Pfeiffer 2000 Annual (Volume 2, Consulting). Briefly, the exercise and ensuing debriefing/processing looks like this:
a. I break participants into groups of 5 or so and place them in front of a large writing surface, e.g. blackboard, whiteboard, easel, etc.
b. I give them a vague goal; in most cases, I use the goal "be creative". I instruct the group that within 30 seconds, each group member must make a mark and (this is important) they must tell what they have made as a TEAM. Any questions are fielded with a vague "I don't want to stifle your creativity, just make a mark and be as creative as possible". The purpose of the time is to create time pressure and the purpose of the vague goal is to create an experiential and relational context for exploring what Margaret Wheatley calls the strange attractor.
c. I say go. Once all have made a mark, I then ask them what they have made. After doing this for a number of years, I have found that 9 out of 10 groups (PLEASE, I hope this does not start another statistics discussion ;-)) get into competition, i.e. someone makes a mark independent of all others. Rarely does a group stop to plan and collaborate, i.e. "lets make a house, a star, a happy face, etc". It is great for discussion when that does happen, however. So, if no group does that, I anecdotally bring it in.
d. To bring out what happens in an environment in which chaos is not allowed to approach equilibrium or there is constant entropy pressure, I challenge the group, i.e. whatever they make, I tell them that is not what they made but is something else and tell them to improve their drawing to make it so. For example, if a group claims its product is a car, I tell them its a pizza and that all members must make another mark to make it a better pizza. I do this until one of two things happens: the sheet becomes an unintelligible mess or, more usually, a member revolts, quitting or becoming passive aggressive.
As with all experiential exercises, the key is the discussion or processing. Key discussion points:
a. I ask the group what is chaos. Most say disorder (although last night a person did say it was the absence of patter and direction of actions). I then flip the easel pad to clean sheet or hold up a sheet of typing paper and tell them "this is chaos, the absence of pattern." We then discuss that chaos is not something to fear and resist, but a clean pallet upon which the leader or organization creates. Depending on the group, we may talk about how you get to a "clean sheet" in an organization, i.e. remove existing patterns. We also talk about the inevitable dip in performance that will occur in the creation of chaos. (I have developed a neat model based on the G.A.S. (General Adaptation Syndrome) curve developed by Hans Seyles that addresses this and will share if interested.) I also bring out that the two times we find chaos "naturally" is at the onset of change - before predispositions and opinion is formulated - and whenever we form a new group or activity (which is a form of change).
b. I ask the group what pressures caused the first mark to be made and how that mark caused other patterns to develop. We get into things like primary needs (principally achievement and the need for affiliation drives people to react with a "contribution"), goal-path theory, needs to satisfaction model, etc.
c. I ask the group how a plan would have helped, using a group that planned as an example or describing a group that did plan. We explore the idea that a plan creates what Margaret Wheatley calls fields and helps to shape effective, desirable patterns around/towards the strange attractor (goal). We then get into identity, talking about how identity creates/shapes the coherence of people with differing motivational drives. Depending on the group and what I want them to see, we talk about the difference in plans with and those without a values or ethic content.
d. Depending on the maturity of the group and intended outcomes, we get into discussions of entropy, systems models, and the effects of communications.
e. Some peripheral dynamics the exercise brings out: ownership, trust, situational leadership (the development of follower and impacts of not changing leadership style accordingly), power bases, communication refractors, and others.
This activity has proven a winner for helping people to understand how aspects of leadership and motivation help in environments of emerging chaos or consistent disequilibrium. Adult students of all levels find it easy to relate to complex concepts via this lens.
Best wishes.
Ed
Drive On!