Complexity v.

Transformation: The New Leadership Revisited

RUSS MARION
409 Tillman Hall
School of Education
Box 340710
Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29631
Marion2@clemson.edu

MARY UHL-BIEN*
Department of Management
University of Central Florida
PO Box 161400
Orlando, Florida 32816-1400
(407) 823-2915
mary.uhl-bien@bus.ucf.edu

Presented at Managing the Complex IV--Conference on Complex Systems and the

Management of Organizations, Ft. Meyers, Florida, December, 2002

*
Names listed alphabetically
Complexity v. Transformation: The New Leadership Revisited

Abstract

Transformational leadership theory, as developed by James Burns (1978), Bernard

Bass (1985), and others, has proven to be one of the more important macro perspectives

of leadership to emerge out of the post-modern critique of earlier, more deterministic

perspectives of leadership. For this reason, Bryman (1996) labeled it the “new

leadership.” Similarly, Complexity theory is one of the more important dynamic

perspectives to emerge out of the “new science” (Wheatley, 1999). While both models

address processes for creating transformation to stimulate organizational effectiveness,

they do so from very different perspectives. In particular, Complexity theory contradicts

several basic constructs underlying transformational theory (its relationship to control, for

example), and describes the process of transformation from a radically different

perspective. In this paper we develop a definition of Complex Leadership, and discuss

key differences between Transformational and Complex Leadership. We argue that the

differences between the two are consequential--so much so that we propose Complex

Leadership as a “new, new leadership.” Further, we discuss how the practice of

Transformational leadership as it is defined in the literature can limit full expression of

organizational creativity and fitness. Finally, we discuss how Transformational

leadership can be more fully realized within a context of network interdependency, and

how it can inform a broader theory of Complex Leadership.

 Complexity v. Transformation: The New Leadership Revisited

Transformational leadership theory, as developed by James Burns (1978), Bernard

Bass (1985), and others, has proven to be one of the more important macro perspectives

of leadership to emerge out of the post-modern critique of earlier, more deterministic

perspectives. The transformational leader “looks for potential motives in followers, seeks

to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower” (Burns, 1978, p. 4) in

an effort to transform followers into self- motivated “leaders” and to create a culture of

organizational effectiveness. Bryman (1996) has labeled this, “the new leadership,” to

recognize its departure from earlier models of leadership.

Complexity theory likewise seeks strategies for stimulating effective organizational

behavior, but it does so from a uniquely different perspective. Broadly, Complexity

theory explores the dynamics of social network behavior, focusing on the products of

interdependent interaction rather than on the products of direct leadership. Leadership

activity is certainly important, but it is couched within the broader context of interactive

dynamics.

The differences are consequential, so much so that we propose Complex Leadership

as a new “new leadership.” This paper will discuss what is meant by Complex

Leadership and will describe the leader’s role in the development of effective

organizational culture and general organizational fitness. We will propose that a

Complexity perspective contradicts several basic constructs underlying Transformational

theory (its relationship to control, for example); more generally, we argue that

Complexity theory describes the process of transformation from radically different

perspectives. Further, we propose that the practice of Transformational leadership as it is

defined in the literature can limit full expression of organizational creativity and fitness.

Finally, we will argue that Transformational leadership can be more fully realized within

a context of network interdependency and should be considered a sub-perspective of a

broader theory of Complex Leadership.

Complexity Theory and the Role of Complex Leadership

Complexity theory is the study of self- reinforcing interdependent interaction and how

such interaction creates evolution, fitness, and surprise (Arthur, 1989; Bak, 1996;

Guastello, 1995; Holland, 1995; Kauffman, 1993). According to Complexity theory,

complex dynamics are impelled more by such interaction than by leadership action (e.g.,

transformational leadership). Complexity envisions young organizations as nascent

social networks, or complex adaptive systems, composed of a variety of adapting agents

that recursively interact with, and mutually affect, one another, and in so doing generate

novel behavior for the system as a whole (Marion, 1999; Regine & Lewin, 2000).

In this way, Complexity theory moves away from linear, mechanistic views of the

world, views that seek simple cause-and-effect explanations for physical and social

phenomena, to a perspective of the world as nonlinear, organic, and characterized by

uncertainty and unpredictability (Regine, 2000). In contrast to classical science, which

seeks order and stability, complexity science sees nature as too dynamic, unpredictable

and complexly stable to be described with simple models (Prigogine, 1997).

Complexity perspectives fundamentally change the way we need to consider

leadership. In contrast to traditional top-down, leadership-controlled perspectives of

organizational processes, complexity theory views organizing as a bottom- up dynamic

that is generated through interactive bonding among interdependent, need-seeking

individuals, each of which are driven by their local (bounded) assessments of social and

organizational events. This interactive dynamic can be described as recursive; that is, it

exhibits interdependent, multi- way chains of causality, non- linear behaviors, and

multiple, often conflicting, feedback loops.

The recursive aggregation process is too complex to be effectively controlled or

determined by leaders. It may be influenced, however, by leaders who influence the

nature of, or enable, the emergence of complex networks. To discuss this more fully,

Marion & Uhl- Bien (2001, 2002) developed the concept of Complex Leadership.

Complex Leadership states that rather than looking to influence systems directly,

Complex Leaders need to foster the conditions that enable productive, but largely

unspecified, future states. They do this by feeding the natural bottom-up dynamics of

emergence, innovation, and fitness. They think broadly in terms of systems, of nonlinear

effects, and of network forces, and they understand the patterns of complexity and learn

to manipulate the situations of complexity more than its results.

Complex leadership occurs on two levels: micro and macro. On the micro- level,

Complex Leadership facilitates the process of correlation, aggregation and emergence.

Micro- level Complexity Theory (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001) describes how organizations

arise, and leaders emerge, through a process of correlation (Poincare, 1992, as elaborated

by Prigogine, 1997, and Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001) that leads to aggregation. Correlation

describes an emergent dynamic in which interacting and interdependent units

compromise a measure (but not all) of their individualistic need-preferences to the needs

of others and to the needs of an emergent alliance. Correlation is a bottom up process in

that it is a function of interaction among the basic units of a system, although the milieu
in which it occurs is typically influenced (for better or worse) by leadership decisions. In

this way, micro- level Complex Leadership behaviors involve negotiating through

conflicting constraints (e.g., need incompatibilities such as task-related conflict; Jehn,

1997) at the local level in ways that help establish correlational bonds (Marion & Uhl-

Bien, 2001) that produce aggregation.

At the macro-level, Complexity Theory is about structures and behaviors that emerge

unbidden out of an interactive network of ensembles, through the process of aggregation.

Aggregation is the structuring of agents into forms and ideas; it is the result of recursive

interaction (e.g., autocatalysis, Kauffman, 1993; Marion, 1999) and correlation at the

micro- level. Structure and behavior at the macro-level emerge from the uncertainty,

unpredictability, and nonlinearity that characterize micro-dynamics; thus these dynamics

also elude control and prediction. Therefore, macro- level Complex Leadership involves

creating conditions that enable the interactions through which the behaviors and direction

of organizational systems emerge. Macro- level Complex Leaders do not focus on

determining or directing what will happen within the organization; rather they seek to

influence organizational behavior through managing networks and interactions.

This is not to say that direction and determination does not occur. Complex

Leadership involves direct and indirect leadership behaviors. Direct leadership behaviors

are broadly defined as deliberate efforts to influence; they provide direction, and

influence and control the direction of behaviors. Indirect leadership behaviors do not

directly influence; rather they may foster innovation and fitness through such activities as

stimulating conditions that simultaneously create conflicting constraints and enable their
resolution, and by providing unifying symbolic meaning that serve to spark bottom- up

activity.

Within Complex Leadership, the most appropriate direct leadership behaviors are

usually localized in nature and primarily impact immediate conflicting constraints and

local dynamics, e.g., micro- level Complex Leadership. Because this type of leadership

acts largely for selfish (locally focused) reasons, however, this self- interest may result in

conflicting constraints at a higher level of interaction, leading to a mesh of conflicting

constraints at the macro- level. These conflicting constraints can be resolved for the good

of the whole system, but require the use of indirect leadership behaviors, e.g., macro-

level Complex Leadership. Macro-level indirect leadership behaviors serve to foster

network structures that present complexly interactive challenges, create atmospheres that

“empower” workers to deal with constraints, and enable network relationships that can

work through constraints and use them as springboards for creativity.

Another type of indirect leadership behavior is the “tag” (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001).

Holland (1995) introduced the concept of tag based on his observations of the emergence

of specialized catalytic forms in his neural network simulations. Generally, tags are

catalytic “things” (as opposed to events; a terrorist bombing is a catalyst but a bomber is

a tag catalyst) that lend overt, even deliberate, symbolic meaning to an emergent event.

Tags perform two specific catalytic functions. First, by providing unifying symbolic

meaning, they delineate their systems from their environments, give them identity, and

help bond constituent parts. Thus a tag can be (among other things) an idea, a physical

symbol of a system such as a flag, a common enemy, or a belief. Second, tags can
perform leadership functions. As such, they serve to spark bottom- up activity rather than

to implant top-down expectations.

Leadership tags function as unifying symbols of a movement, they articulate its goals,

and they embody its meaning. Tags (including leaders) emerge out of, and owe their

existence to, interactive dynamics. They rarely (and we suspect, never) initiate an

interactive dynamic themselves; rather they are produced by the broader dynamic.

Complex Leadership, therefore, differs from traditional models of leadership on

several key issues. First, Complex Leadership argues that organizations and their leaders

are products of interactive dynamics. That is, leaders do not create the system; it is

created through a process of aggregation and emergence. Second, Complex Leadership

moves away from traditional assumptions regarding hierarchical bureaucracy and

leadership embedded in managerial roles (McKelvey, in press), and instead understands

that leadership behaviors permeate the complex system. Third, Complex Leadership

argues that complex systems are better led by indirect than direct leadership behaviors.

At the micro- level, Complex Leadership may involve direct leadership behaviors, but

leadership is still not intended to control but rather to negotiate through conflicting

constraints and create linkages that contribute to aggregation, emergence, and innovation.

Finally, Complex Leadership at the macro- level can more effectively impact the fitness

of the system by tempering leadership control preferences and instead fostering

connectivity among diverse agents; enabling effective coupling of structures, ideas, and

innovations to ensure they are neither too loose nor too tightly interdependent; and

stimulating systems toward emergent surprises (Marion & Uhl- Bien, 2001).
Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership takes a very different perspective on micro- and macro-

level leadership. Whereas Complex Leadership is a process of bottom- up emergence and

indirect leadership, Transformational leadership represents a top-down leadership

approach and suggests more direct attempts at leadership influence. It does this through

its emphasis on vision (e.g., direction) and getting people to “buy into” and follow the

vision (e.g., control). At the macro- level, Transformational leadership views the leader’s

role as a manager of meaning, providing a strong link between the leader’s behavior and

organizational culture and symbolic aspects of organizations. At the micro-level, it

emphasizes the emotional reactions of followers to the leader’s vision, and focuses on

leaders understanding and managing followers’ reactions so they can know best how to

get followers to align with the vision.

As noted by Conger (1999), with Transformational leadership the “heroic leader has

returned--reminiscent of the days of the ‘great man’ theories—with a humanistic twist

given the transformational leader’s strong orientation toward the development of others”

(p. 149). Burns (1978) described the “transforming” leader as one who raises the

aspirations of his or her followers such that the leader’s and follower’s aspirations are

fused. At the macro- level, Charismatic or transformational leaders articula te a realistic

vision of the future that can be shared, make sure it is communicated and intelligible to

followers, and in this way transform followers and often organizations in correspondence

with their vision. According to Tichy and DeVanna (1986), by defining the need,

creating new visions, and mobilizing commitment to these visions, leaders can ultimately

transform organizations.
 At the micro- level, transformational leaders motivate their followers to commit to and

realize performance outcomes that exceed their expectations (Bass, 1985). In Bass’

(1985) theory, three primary processes are involved: 1) leaders heighten followers’

awareness about the importance and value of goals and the means to achieve them; 2)

leaders induce followers to transcend their self- interests for the good of the collective and

its goals; and 3) leaders stimulate and meet followers’ higher order needs (as reported in

Conger, 1999, p. 151). They do this through the use of four behavioral components: a)

charisma, or idealized influence, b) inspiration, c) intellectual stimulation, and d)

individualized consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1993).

According to Transformational theory, the communication of high expectations is a

central activity of the leader, and aims to empower and to promote high task

accomplishment (Conger, 1999). With charisma, leaders challenge the status quo and get

followers to do the same. Through intellectual stimulation, leaders provide a new flow of

ideas and perspectives that challenge follower’s thinking concerning organizational tasks.

Through individualized consideration they provide encouragement and support to

followers, assist their development by promoting growth opportunities, and show trust

and respect for them as individuals. The role of individualized consideration is to build

followers’ self-confidence and contribute to their personal development (Conger, 1999).

Finally, with inspiration, transformational leaders influence followers’ motivation and get

them to “perform beyond expectations” (Ba ss, 1985).

These approaches advocate the transformational influence of leaders, where the main

goal is to change followers’ core attitudes, beliefs, and values rather than induce only

compliance behavior in them (Conger, 1999). “Transformation” is accomplished by

changing follower perceptions of the nature of work itself, offering an appealing future

vision, developing a deep collective identity, and heightening individual and collective

self-efficacy (Conger, 1999). In such a way, Transformational leadership behaviors lead

to attitudes changes among followers, identification with the leader, and internalization of

the leader’s vision.

Complex v. Transformational Leadership

From this discussion, we can see sharp differences between Complexity perspectives

and Transformational leadership. While both approaches acknowledge the role of

“symbolic leadership” at the macro- level--e.g., visioning and inspiration for

Transformational leadership and “tags” for Complex Leadership--a key distinction

between the two is their relationship to control. A fundamental tenet of Complex

Leadership is its movement away from control (Stacey, Griffin, & Shaw, 2000;

Streatfield, 2001). While Transformational theory is also said to move away from control

(e.g., away from compliance and toward empowerment), the impetus for control in

Transformational leadership still lies with the leader. In Complexity perspectives, control

lies not with the leader but within interactive dynamics of the system. More specifically,

Transformational leadership sees control as top down, and at the discretion of the leader;

Complexity theory sees control as bottom- up and imbedded within the dynamics of the

system.

Examination of arguments from critical theorists helps illustrate this point. Critical

theorists argue that all of organizational theory serves the control preferences of a

capitalistic elite (Jermier, 1998). The control agenda is particularly evident in the early

20th century works of Taylor (1911), Fayol (1916), and Weber (1947) and in the
contingency theory literature (Fiedler, 1967; House, 1971). It may also be seen, however,

in seemingly people-oriented theories, including human relations perspectives. For

example, Etzioni (1964) argued that the human relations movement was ultimately about

extending the preferences of elites but does so with a “velvet glove of control” (Jermier,

1998).

Critical theorists have likewise indicted the tools of human relations perspectives,

such as team-based production. Ezzamel and Willmott (1998) believe that “teamwork

can conceal or dissemble a variety of unsavory features of work organization, including

coercion masquerading as empowerment and the camouflaging of managerial expediency

in the rhetorics of "clannism" and humanization” (p. 358-359; see also Knight &

Willmott, 1987). Mueller (1994) argued that team-based management strategies seek to

"re-align individual motivation with organizational rationality" (p. 386).

Critical theorists’ central concern with Transformational approaches is that

transformational behaviors seek to advance the leader’s control and managerial agendas

by appearing to “empower” the individual. That is, Transformational leadership is

ultimately about accomplishing the vision of the leader. What they actually do is to

subtly control workers’ minds and actions by structuring the organization in ways that

forces them to “act out” on the “elite’s” goals. Elites manipulate the language, structure,

and goals of commerce, and workers are deluded into thinking they have freely “bought-

in” to the company line.

Complexity approaches take a different perspective. In Complex Leadership, leaders

are sensitive to control agendas and to the subtle ways their authority can advance these

agendas. They recognize that fitness, emergence, and innovation are the product of
bottom- up activity, and therefore the potential of emergence can only be limited if

controlled by a central personality. This is not to say that overt control should be

indiscriminately avoided. As mentioned above, Complex Leaders can foster complex

behavior by helping to resolve conflicting constraints (e.g., direct leadership). Moreover,

they can take advantage of catalyzing direction by serving as tags (e.g., indirect

leadership). In engaging in these behaviors, however, Complex Leaders need to take

caution to prevent emergence of power fiefdoms within their organizations.

Therefore, Transformational theory sees leaders as central to organizational dynamics

and success, while Complexity theory sees the leader as part (albeit an important part) of

a broader dynamic. Transformational leadership attributes fitness to top-down, leader-

centered activity. Complexity theory focuses on bottom-up, recursive interactions across

an entire social network. Complex leaders foster a general mission for the organization

but treat that mission as a changing, organic entity and avoid using it to limit innovation.

Moreover, they use their authority and charisma as a tag and not as a limiting force.

Complexity and Transformationa l theories also describe the process of transformation

from radically different perspectives. Transformational leadership describes

transformation as inducing followers to transcend their self- interests for the good of the

collective and its goals. Complexity Theory sees transformation as an emergent

commitment to innovation and bottom- up productivity from diverse goals and skills

(distributed intelligence).

For example, by emphasizing leader-directed “transforming” behavior,

transformational leadership theory focuses on leader-follower (which often means

manager-subordinate) relationships. In the transformational literature, leader-follower

congruence is the central dynamic of organizational success—without it, followers would

not be convinced of the need to commit to the higher-order goal. In Complexity theory,

the central dynamic is interactions and interdependencies among diverse goals, needs,

and skills (e.g., heterogeneity and distributed intelligence). Commitment is more

localized within aggrega tes than centralized across the system, and the aggregates are

bound by an interdependent network of commitments. Leaders (tags) help generate a

common purpose and a sense of unity, and while in that sense these leadership tags may

act like transformational leaders, the key dynamic of control is still the interdependence

of diversity. If the tag is so powerful that it subjugates the diversity (as is implied by

transformational perspectives, particularly those related to charisma), then it

compromises the very strength of the system—its ability to innovate and emerge

(McKelvey, in press).

Unlike transformation theory, then, Complexity is not about unity of perspective

centered around a leader, for that would stifle innovation and emergence. Rather it is

about aggregation attributable to the conflicting constraints and tension created by

diverse agents in moderately coupled networks. Transformational leaders transform

attitudes around a central vision; Complex Leaders transform a social system into a

neural network of diverse, adapting agents. Transformational leaders convert people into

replicas of themselves; Complex Leaders (e.g., tags) convert people into diverse but

interdependent Complex Adaptive Agents Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2002).

Another key difference between the two approaches is in their view of causality.

Transformational leadership tends to define social action either in terms of static

relationships (structuralist theory) or (more often) as a series of linear, causal events

(process theory; Mohr, 1982). Complexity theory also understands social action as a

series of events but defines them as functions of nonlinear, rather than linear, causal

activities. Put simply, outcome (knowledge) is the product and property of complex

interactions rather than the product of an independent variable or chain of such variables.

Finally, Transformational theory defines leaders as “managers of meaning,” as

opposed to earlier theories, which saw leaders as “managers of influence” (Bryman,

1996; Smircich & Morgan, 1982). We argue that Complexity theory defines leaders as

“managers of emergence,” a term which is inclusive of “meaning.” That is, leaders

manage networks, interdependency, diversity within unity (meaning), correlation,

conflicting constraints and resulting tension, complex transformation, autocatalysis, and

recursion. Manage in this sense does not mean control; rather it is better defined as

“enable.” In this way, Complexity represents a “new, new” leadership.

Implications of Transformational and Complex Leadership for Creativity and Fitness

The differences between Complexity and Transformational approaches are important

because of their implications for creativity and organizational fitness and survival. As

noted by Yukl (1999) with regard to Transformational leadership approaches,

“organizational processes…receive insufficient attention in most theories of

transformational leadership” (p. 288). He continues: “Leadership is viewed as a key

determinant of organizational effectiveness, but the causal effects of leader behavior on

the organizational processes that ultimately determine effectiveness are seldom described

in any detail. One essential leadership function is to help the organization adapt to its

environment and acquire resources needed to survive (Hunt, 1991; Yukl, 1998)” (p. 288).
However, the process by which Transformational leadership can do this is not sufficiently

explained (Yukl, 1999).

This is where Complexity theory can help. Complexity theory addresses the

processes through which organizations achieve fitness and survival, and Complex

Leadership helps explain leaders’ role in the Complexity process. The practice of

Transformational leadership as it is defined in the literature can limit full expression of

organizational creativity and fitness because it does not focus on organizational processes

but rather on the leader. Complexity theory, by focusing on the organizational process,

underscores and remediates that weakness.

Another limitation of Transformational leadership is in its view that “influence is

unidirectional, and it flows from the leader to the follower” (Yukl, 1999. p. 292). When a

relationship is found between Transformational leadership and subordinate outcomes,

transformational researchers interpret this as leaders influencing subordinates to perform

better. “There is little interest in describing reciprocal influence processes or shared

leadership” (Yukl, 1999, p. 292). According to Yukl (1999), an alternative perspective is

to describe leadership as a shared process of enhancing the collective and individual

capacity of people to accomplish their roles effectively.

From this standpoint, Complex Leadership also helps address limitations of

Transformational leadership. Complex Leadership is a more shared perspective of

leadership. It does not require an individual who can perform all the essentially

leadership functions, but rather a collective of distributed intelligence.

Alternatively, Transformational and Charismatic leadership approaches can help

inform regarding a key element in Complexity, the role of the tag. In particular, the
emphasis on collective identification in charismatic approaches speaks to the symbolism

and unifying appeal of the tag. Tags help generate a common purpose and a sense of

unity; they understand catalytic events and use them to mobilize and guide behavior.

Transformational and Charismatic leadership, through their emphasis on inspiring and

motivating leadership behavior, may be able to help Complexity theorists understand how

the role of tags work in complex systems, and how they relate to Complex Leadership.

Conclusion

In this paper we have argued that Transformational and Complexity theories offer

very different perspectives on leadership in complex organizations. Transformational

(and charismatic) leadership provides a top-down, leader-controlled model of leaders

identifying vision and mobilizing followers behind that vision. Complexity provides a

bottom- up model of emergence, with Complex leaders bonding (direct) and enabling

(indirect) rather than controlling the interactive dynamics that lead to creativity and

fitness. According to Complexity perspectives, the leader-directed model proposed by

Transformational and Charismatic leadership approaches may stifle creativity and

emergence because of its emphasis on leader control. We suggest that Transformational

leadership may be able to fit within a broader theory of Complex Leadership and that by

doing so its potential may be more fully realized. In particular, Transformational

leadership, with its emphasis on the leader and lack of attention to organizational

processes (Yukl, 1999), could benefit from integration with a process-oriented model of

leadership offered by Complexity. In so doing, however, the leader’s transformational

role would need to be considered from the standpoint of a tag, meaning that
transformational leadership would not be hierarchical and authoritative but rather

catalytic and nurturing.

 References

Arthur, W. B. (1989). The economy and complexity. In D. L. Stein (Ed.), Lectures in the

sciences of complexity (Vol. 1, pp. 713-740). Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Bak, P. (1996). How nature works. New York: Copernicus.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free

Press.

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, 4: 231-272.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership of organizations. London: Sage Publishers.

Bryman, A. (1996). Leadership in organizations. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord

(Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Studies (pp. 276-292). London: Sage

Publications.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

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

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

10(2), 145-179.

Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Ezzamel, M., & Willmott, H. (1998). Accounting for teamwork: A critical study of the

group-based systems of organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly,

43, 358-396.

Fayol, H. (1916). Administration Industrielle et Generale. [Reprinted as General and

Industrial Management, trans. C. Storrs. London: Pittman, 1949.]

Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Guastello, S. J., Dooley, K. J., & Goldstein, J. A. (1995). Chaos, organizational theory,

and organizational development. In F. D. Abraham & A. R. Gilgen (Eds.), Chaos

theory in psychology (pp. 267-278). Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.

Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing

Company.

House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal model of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 321-338.

Hunt J.G. (1991). Leadership: A new synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in

organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557.

Jermier, J. M. (1998). Introduction: Critical perspectives on organizational control.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 235-256.

Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order. New York: Oxford University Press.

Knight, D., & Willmott, H. (1987). Organizational culture as corporate strategy.

International Studies of Management and Organization, 17(3), 40-63.

Marion, R. (1999). The edge of organization: Chaos and complexity theories of formal

social organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. Leadership

Quarterly, 12, 389-418.

Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2002). Complexity Theory and Al-Qaeda: Examining

Complex Leadership. Paper presented at Managing the Complex IV--Conference on

Complex Systems and the Management of Organizations, Ft. Meyers, FL, Dec. 7-10.
McKelvey, B. (in press). MicroStrategy from MacroLeadership: Distributed intelligence

via new science. In A. Y. Lewin & H. Volberda (Eds.), Mobilizing the self-renewing

organization . Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.

Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mueller, F. (1994). Teams between hierarchy and commitment: Change strategies and the

'internal environment'. Journal of Management Studies, 31, 383-403.

Poincaré, H. (Ed.). (1992). New methods of celestial mechanics (Vol. 13). New York,

NY: Springer-Verlag New York, Incorporated.

Prigogine, I. (1997). The end of certainty. New York: The Free Press.

Regine, B., & Lewin, R. (2000). Leading at the edge: How leaders influence complex

systems. Emergence: A Journal of Complexity Issues in Organizations and

Management, 2(2), 5-23.

Regine, B. (2000).

Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 257-273.

Stacey, R.D., Griffin, D., & Shaw, P. (2000). Complexity and management: Fad or

radical challenge in systems thinking? New York: Routledge.

Streatfield, P.J. (2001). The paradox of control in organizations. New York: Routledge.

Taylor, F. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper.

Tichy, N.M., & Devanna, M.A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: Wiley.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A.H. Henderson &

Talcott Parsons, Trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Wheatley, M.J. (1999). Leadership and the new science (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-

Koehler.

Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and

charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 2, 285-305.