Both articles provide examples of where organizations failed and succeeded. For example, Visa succeeded as it evolved as a giant financial institution. If bringing order to chaos is what leaders do, Dee Hock, the founder of Visa, coined the word chaordic to describe the company's operations. The research argues that such a success needs a shift in the role of management. Continuous evolution and adjustments to fundamental organizational strategies are needed to use chaos as the shift to innovativeness and implement change.

Even though it might not be applied to organizations in general, it is convincing that inertia can be complex as the organization's size increases. Overcoming inertia and continuing to innovate and compete needs an evolving strategy capable of making small changes for big outcomes. While major or big organizational changes might need a longer time to complete, the outcomes also take longer. IBM's example was best suited, infers that time to market will be missed and new organizations will fly with our opportunity. It is not just the change; keeping the business competitive is the goal.

Change in small organizations is easier, and research also provides that the younger generation shows less inertia for organizational change. Making employees feel that failures are acceptable significantly improves innovative culture. A shift from traditional top-down management towards helping employees self-organize will prepare organizations for change and contribute to being competitive and innovative. Self-organizing is one of the aspects of complexity theory.

While change is inevitable to remain competitive and innovative, managing chaos makes it complex in the constantly changing environment for organizations. Implementing complexity theories to bring order to chaos and organizing change readiness is a continuous and evolving process for leaders. There is not enough research on how and when complexity theories can be applied; in fact, the definition of complexity itself is a big umbrella. But what sounds interesting is to find how to make the change process a fundamental process within organizations.

For example, to explore new changes in technology for an upcoming project, leaders can team up with existing employees to develop a proof of concept (POC) instead of hiring someone with skills and delaying POC. The fundamentals in this example are, we innovate without delays and fear failure due to a lack of skill set. Leaders can, in parallel, plan to hire subject matter experts as the POC progresses.

Comment on the post?

NEED CONCLUSION AT THE END OF ANS