I agree with the authors’ presented context of the Newtonian paradigm – one can see in the rhetoric of politics, management, etc. that many are largely concerned with preserving the peace, or “keeping things copasetic” as the article asserts, rather than ushering in or embracing change. As change has vastly accelerated with development and new technology, I side with the authors that a leadership model better suited to ambiguity and change is in order. I appreciate also their redefining of the term “chaos”into more of an “orderly disorder” concept.
I have long contended, after being inspired reading David Brooks’ “The Social Animal” shortly after undergrad, that the Descartian “reason vs emotion” dichotomy is heavily flawed, misguided, and roundly exposed as unwarranted by scientific research – yet it continues to guide much of our assumptions in viewing organizations, management, and relationships. Organizations and people are far more complex than we’d like to believe, we do not always act logically or in our best interests (the budding field of behavioral economics shows this), and we certainly do not operate along linear, clean lines.
This new leadership paradigm presented by the authors sounds good to me; with constant flux of power and “flattening” of knowledge barriers, a leadership concept that embraces the change and myriad of factors present in today’s world – while letting go of the need for control and stability and status quo maintenance characteristic of the past – seems like the answer to fostering innovation and a healthy, agile organization in the modern era. The name of the game is not looking at yesterday to do the same thing tomorrow, it is constantly involving more and more talent to try to get ahead of trends, and testing assumptions until something hits to find a new truth.
With the added considerations of diversity and constantly emerging technology and a very flat world, an outdated concept of organizational leadership based on stability is only seeking to “put the cat back in the bag,” so to speak, and is not going to be a mindset that ushers any organizations into existing too far into the future.