irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com · web viewtheory than a statement of faith,” as bert alan spector...

Running head: CHAOS THEORY AND WEAK LEADERSHIP

Chaos Theory as a Component of Weak Leadership Within the Organizational Environment

Matt Hisrich*

August 2017

University of Maryland University College

CHAOS THEORY AND WEAK LEADERSHIP 2

Abstract

This paper is a rapid evidence assessment of five published articles that report on chaos theory in

the organizational environment historically, as well as two published case studies of the theory

within the past five years, to determine how insights from the theory might inform a weak

leadership framework. Operationalizing chaos theory as leaders involves a willingness to set

aside notions of a mechanistic, cause and effect world for an understanding of the organizational

environment that better reflects the fluid and dynamic nature of reality. The paper identifies six

key themes from the literature: adaptability, operating on the edge of chaos, nonhierarchy,

nonlinearity, open and iterative communication, and uncertainty. These six themes are shown to

align with the basic premises of a weak leadership framework. This larger framework emerges

out of the tradition of weak theology, where weakness is understood as a positive attribute. Its

basic premises include: community building, consensus-based decision-making, dispersed

knowledge, noncoercion, nonhierarchy, and nonomniscience. Chaos theory as a component of

weak leadership within the organizational environment allows for the development of a model of

the chaordic organizational state – one that remains in motion as it moves to temporary states of

order rather than falling prey to either complete chaos or total stagnation. Practitioners and

researchers are encouraged to test this model in operation in a variety of settings to examine its

ongoing effectiveness in response to change and crisis.

Keywords: chaos theory, leadership, organizational environment, rapid evidence

assessment, weak theology

*Matt Hisrich currently serves as Director of Recruitment and Admissions for Earlham School of Religion in Richmond, Indiana, in the United States. This paper was completed as part of the Doctor of Management program at the University of Maryland University College. Mr. Hisrich also holds a BA in Political Economy from Hillsdale College and an MDiv from Earlham School of Religion.


Chaos Theory as a Component of Weak Leadership Within the Organizational Environment

Weak leadership has the potential to be understood as a positive framework to counter the

dominant – and counterproductive – narrative of the great leader in organizational life. Far

removed from traditional business leadership literature, the concept begins with a critical insight

from philosopher and theologian John D. Caputo’s The Weakness of God (2006). The nature and

action of God is invitational and transformational rather than an ultimate power using coercion to

obtain obedience from followers. God brings about God’s purposes in the world through God’s

very weakness – not through dominance and authority. Weak theology, then, has the potential to

serve as a theoretical lens within the organizational environment – if it is possible to demonstrate

that traditional understandings of leadership do not reflect the nature of our reality.

Because of the large nature of the project of developing a new leadership framework,

however, the focus of this paper is on only one stream within that framework: chaos theory. With

its emphasis on nonlinearity and unpredictability, chaos theory turns the mechanistic, causal

order of much of Newtonian scientific understanding on its head. The purpose of the paper is

thus not to engage in an extended discussion of weak leadership itself, or to outline all its

components. Instead the aim is to answer the narrower research question (RQ): How does the

application of chaos theory within the internal and external organizational environments inform a

weak leadership framework? Providing an answer to this question will provide leaders with a

critical resource for effective organizational management and will fill an existing gap in the

research literature by pulling together isolated single studies to reveal key insights within a larger

theoretical framework.

Theoretical Background: The Great Man and the Weak Leader

Daft, Murphy, and Willmott (2010) define the organizational environment “as all the

elements existing outside the boundary of the organization that have the potential to affect all or


part of the organization” (p. 140). Applying weakness in the organizational environment, it is

possible to reframe the idea as a positive rather than a negative leadership style. To do so

involves not starting from scratch, but rather pulling from multiple theoretical streams to develop

a counter to the dominant image of the strong leader or “great man” (Skidmore, 2006, p. 438)

(and it has been understood as men only in the past) – an image that may invite leaders to engage

in counterproductive behavior based on an assumption of even relative omniscience that may

undermine organizational health (Hoffman, Woehr, Maldagen-Youngjohn, & Lyons, 2011).

While some may see great men concepts as outmoded, the reality is that they retain a

powerful hold on the imagination. This is certainly the case in the popular press. A recent article

in Forbes magazine, for instance, lists among the 10 qualities of a great leader to: “Have faith in

their beliefs”; “Make the hard choice”; and “Articulate a clear vision” (Gleeson, 2016). In the

academic literature, however, there is greater skepticism. In one recent example on innovation in

leadership the author points out that “the industrial age command and control leadership style

and supporting infrastructure are ineffective” (Malloch, 2010, p. 1) given new realities of rapid

pace of change, multiple streams of information exchange, and environmental turbulence.

Malloch’s observation leads to Proposition One:

Proposition 1 (P1): Despite its significant cultural influence, a strong approach to

leadership is ill-equipped to successfully manage the dynamic and unpredictable nature

of the organizational environment.

In contrast, the plethora of academic research on less authoritative approaches such as

servant leadership and followership serves as evidence of the need for alternatives. But the very

nature of this loosely connected collection of theories means that the narrative simplicity of

strength maintains popular dominance. While it may be true that the great man theory is “less a


theory than a statement of faith,” as Bert Alan Spector observes, “people seek a narrative

structure that brings legitimacy to abstractions, offers coherence in response to apparent chaos,

and asserts human agency in the face of seemingly unmanageable complexity” (2016, pp. 251,

258). An alternative framework is therefore needed that gathers these theories together into a

cohesive narrative structure.

Weak leadership offers such a framework: a more collaborative, flexible, and

nonomniscient leader who can facilitate successful outcomes when faced with challenges in

either the internal or external organizational environment without reliance upon coercion or

positional authority rooted in a hierarchical power structure. To accomplish this, the weak

leadership framework draws upon several complementary streams within management theory:

chaos theory and nonrational escalation of commitment (Bazerman, 2006;

Verwey, Crystal, & Bloom, 2002; Thiétart & Forgues, 1995);

dispersed knowledge and consensus decision-making (Gentry, 1982; Hare, 1973;

Hayek, 1945);

servant leadership and followership (Greenleaf, 2010; Baker, 2007); and

authentic and processual leadership (Fraser, 2014; Kezar, Carducci, & Contreras-

McGavin, 2006).

The full development of this framework begins with an analysis of each of its components. This

paper deals with the first of these, chaos theory.

Theoretical Lens: Chaos Theory

“Where chaos begins,” writes James Gleick in his influential 1987 book on the subject,

“classic science ends” (p. 3). It is a bold statement, and one that has significant implications not

simply for the natural sciences, but for the social sciences as well – including leadership. Gleick

offers up several definitions of the concept, but one that hints at both the promise and potentially


terrifying nature of the theory is: “systems liberated to randomly explore their every dynamical

possibility… a cornucopia of opportunity” (p. 306). A significant challenge then becomes

whether and how to translate the insights from developments in physics into improved outcomes

in the workplace. Considering chaos theory in the organizational environment as part of a larger

framework of weak leadership presents just such an opportunity, and leads to Proposition Two:

Proposition 2 (P2): Chaos theory improves upon the strong leader approach within the

organizational environment by offering an alternative set of operational approaches.

These include: operating at the edge of chaos, embrace of uncertainty, open and iterative

communication, nonlinearity, nonhierarchy, and adaptability.

To fully understand chaos theory’s implications for the strong leader paradigm, however,

it is necessary to place it within the context of a weak leadership framework that presents an

effective alternative. Thus, Proposition Three is as follows:

Proposition 3 (P3): Chaos theory is a foundational component of a weak leadership

framework, and complements weak leadership’s core premises of community building,

consensus-based decision-making, dispersed knowledge, noncoercion, nonhierarchy, and

nonomniscience.

Together, these three propositions – that strong leadership is ill-equipped to successfully manage

the dynamic nature of the organizational environment, that chaos theory offers a set of

alternative approaches to strong leadership, and that chaos theory is a foundational component of

the larger narrative framework of weak leadership – provide the method by which the RQ will be

answered.

This paper begins with a description of the methodology employed to accomplish this

task. Results are then reported from the search of existing research literature, leading to the


development of a new model for leadership: the chaordic state. A discussion of the implications

for management and research follows this, along with concluding thoughts and opportunities for

further research.

Method

This paper employs a rapid evidence assessment (REA) methodology to quickly gain

insights into the research on the subject through a configurative approach to develop a broad

conceptual understanding (Gough, Oliver, & Thomas, 2012, pp. 51-52). As the name suggests,

REA is appropriate when time limitations prevent more in-depth systematic reviews. The search

involved two phases – the first to identify key themes in shifting from a Newtonian to a chaos

approach to leadership, and the second to find case studies of chaos theory in application within

the organizational environment.

Phase One Search

Key words used in the phase one search were “chaos theory” and “organizational

environment.” The initial search string used to explore the UMUC Library OneSearch databases

tool was "chaos theory" and "organi?ation* environment*". Unfortunately, this returned only a

single result. A second search string, “Chaos and "organi?ation* environment*" returned 18

results, three of which were relevant to the RQ. A final search string - "chaos theory" and organi?

ation* and global - returned 104 results, six of which were relevant, but only five of which were

available (two were requested through UMUC Document express, of which one arrived in time

to be included). A snowball search was then conducted, with a focus on foundational texts

(Denyer, Tranfield, & Van Aken, 2008, p. 402). This yielded 12 results, but four books were not

possible to obtain in time. The set of sources intentionally includes works of key authors, classic

articles and books of varying perspectives, and significant newer works of influence in the field.


Anderson’s 1999 article on complexity, for instance, ranks in the 99th percentile for citations

according to Scopus (Scopus, 2017). McKelvey’s 1999 article, while not being as influential,

was nonetheless important to include for its insightful critique of the field. Later articles were

selected based on their specific engagement with the research question. Gleick’s 1987 text is

cited by many of the articles in the research set, including Burns (2002); Gilchrist (2000); Gunter

(1995); Pellisier (2012); Stacey, Griffin, and Shaw (2000); Sullivan (2004), Thomas and Mengel

(2008); and Verwey, Crystal, and Bloom (2002). A full listing of the research set is included as

Appendix A. A Weight of Evidence (WoE) Assessment based on relevance, rigor, and study

design (Appendix B) documents how the initial set was narrowed to the five articles most

appropriate to address the RQ (Gough et al., 2012, p. 163). A PRISMA chart that provides an

overview of the entire search process is included as Appendix C. The Results section provides an

overview of each of the five selected articles, and the Discussion section considers their

implications.

Phase Two Search

Because the phase one search resulted in general discussions of chaos theory in

leadership and historical case studies only, the second phase of the research involved a more

narrowly focused exploration of the application of chaos theory in specific contemporary cases

in scholarly journals to help address this gap. The search string used was "chaos theory" AND

leadership AND "case study". The results were limited to the previous 20 years. Twelve results

were returned. These are listed in Appendix D. Two of these results were repeats of the Burns

(2002) article, one was a book, one was a conference presentation, and three were dissertations.

This left five journal articles. Consistent with phase one, these five were reviewed using WoE,

and two – Gilstrap’s 2013 study of staff reorganizations at a university research library and


Liou’s 2015 analysis of a crisis at a public high school – were found to be high quality. A WoE

table is included as Appendix E, and a PRISMA chart is included as Appendix F. Results and

discussion of these two articles follows. The next section provides an overview of the phase one

and phase two research results.

Results

Together, these two phases provide both an abstract theoretical basis as well as practical

analysis from the available research literature to assist in answering the RQ. For each study

reviewed, connections back to the Propositions are noted.

Phase One: Review of Chaos Theory

Chaos theory and the Swiss Bank Crisis: The importance of open and iterative

communication flows. Verwey, Crystal, and Bloom’s (2002) article provides a helpful case

study of chaos theory applied to the Swiss bank crisis of the 1990s. They argue that one of the

key failures of the banks in the wake of questions regarding their handling of funds from

Holocaust victims was a closed communication model that led to a defensive posture in the face

of escalating public concern and media attention (p. 38). A chaos theory framework could have

been helpful because an important insight from the theory is the recognition that narratives are

socially constructed through the interaction and communication of a vast array of individuals.

Organizations therefore need to engage in “non-linear feedback loops” (p. 31) of communication,

response, and adaptation – particularly in times of crisis (p. 33). Had the banks developed

channels of information input and output beyond formal communications from senior leadership

the crisis may have been resolved far sooner and dealt with more effectively. This evidence

supports P1 and P2 in both demonstrating the insufficiency of a hierarchical communication

structure and instead the necessity of open and iterative communication. The evidence supports


P3 in its alignment with the weak leadership framework components of consensus-based

decision-making, dispersed knowledge, nonhierarchy, and nonomniscience. To address the RQ,

had Swiss Bank leaders applied the iterative communication suggested by chaos theory as part of

a weak approach, the crisis may have been averted.

Chaos theory and Shackleton’s doomed voyage: Nonhierarchy and nonomniscience.

Burns (2002) employs a similar case study approach, although with a much earlier historical

event – Ernest Shackleford’s doomed 1914 expedition to Antarctica. Shackleford is used as an

example of the strong leader archetype – one who seeks through sheer will to maintain control of

followers and direct them to a predetermined objective despite all obstacles. Ultimately

Shackleford’s downfall was his inability adapt to changing conditions and incorporate vital

feedback from those beneath him. To avoid following in his footsteps, Burns argues that leaders

should seek a place of dynamism between total anarchy and total stagnation – both of which are

ultimately fatal. To do requires the non-hierarchical involvement of all members of the

organization (a position again like Verwey et al.) (p. 48). This evidence supports P1 and P2 in

presenting an embrace of nonhierarchical uncertainty at the edge of chaos as an alternative model

to Shackleford’s strong approach. This evidence supports P3 in its alignment with the weak

leadership framework components of consensus-based decision-making, noncoercion,

nonhierarchy, and nonomniscience. Here, chaos theory informs a weak leadership framework by

pointing out the lack of leader omniscience and the importance of nonhierarchical

decisionmaking.

Chaos theory and strategic planning: The importance of nonlinearity and

uncertainty. Anderson (1999) draws upon similar themes to Burns (2002), such as the idea of

competing and evolving knowledge structures within an organization as well as without (as


opposed to a top-down hierarchical knowledge structure), and the concept of organizational

vitality lying “at the edge of chaos” between stability and anarchy (pp. 221, 224). Because of the

impossibility of full prediction or control, Anderson argues that leaders should conceive of

effective strategic planning less in terms of rigid formulas and more in improvisational and

adaptive systems (p. 228). This evidence supports P1 and P2 in the use of adaptability,

nonlinearity, and uncertainty at the edge of chaos as how organizations thrive. This evidence

supports P3 in its alignment with the weak leadership framework components of community

building, dispersed knowledge, and nonomniscience. Regarding the RQ, chaos theory’s emphasis

on coming to terms with nonlinearity and uncertainty supports a weak leadership framework by

countering the great leader notion of endurance toward predetermined goals.

Chaos theory and employee management: Adaptability at multiple levels. As with

the others, Pellissier (2012) rails against “Newton’s machinelike, well-behaved universe” (p. 10)

and argues for nonlinear approaches to problem solving and strategic thinking (p. 14). From an

organizational standpoint, the Newtonian approach is traced back to Taylor’s 1911 four

principles of scientific management, which treat employees essentially as mechanistic objects of

control (p. 21). The shift that has taken place from the 20th to the 21st century is one of

recognizing the limits of thinking in terms of rational causality and internally organized systems

(p. 25). Instead, we have come to acknowledge that “organizations are complex

adaptive systems nested in larger complex adaptive systems” (p. 33). This

evidence supports P1 and P2 in suggesting that adaptability, nonhierarchy, and nonlinearity are

better means of leading an organization than a strong approach. This evidence supports P3 in its

alignment with the weak leadership framework components of community building, dispersed

knowledge, and nonomniscience. Chaos theory’s highlighting of adaptability applies to leaders


in a weak framework in that they themselves must be adaptive as individuals within their internal

and external environments adapt and change both in response to leader decisions, but also to a

host of factors beyond the control of leaders.

Chaos theory as antiscience. Unlike the other authors in this data

set, McKelvey (1999) puts forward a significant critique of the state of chaos

theory analysis of organizations. The concern is that without empirical

testing of the basic assertions of the theory it is little more than a “fad” (p.

5). “Experiments more than anything else separate science from witchcraft

or antiscience,” he writes. “Without a program of experimental testing,

complexity applications to organization science remain metaphorical and, if

made the basis of consulting agendas and other managerially oriented

advice, are difficult to distinguish from witchcraft” (p. 21). While McKelvey

certainly raises an important question for chaos theory as a tool, it is hard

not to question whether this concern is itself a product of a mechanistic,

causal understanding. It is unclear from reading the other articles, for

instance, that predictive modeling is in fact the goal of chaos theory applied to leadership.

Must chaos theory prove itself through experimentation, or is its burden merely to prove the

negative – that such prediction is essentially impossible? Further reflection on this question

follows in the Discussion section, as well as a description of how this collection of research leads

to six insights from chaos theory for leadership.

Phase Two: Contemporary Case Studies

Bounded chaos in a university research library. In a 2013 article, Donald Gilstrap

explores the application of a chaos theory understanding in a large university research library


setting. In the case in question, the library experienced two significant reorganizations to adapt

its internal organizational environment to external environmental changes brought about

primarily through technology shifts (electronic media) and related user demands (away from

print resources). These included one in the 1990s toward a team-based leadership and one in the

early 2010s to add back in some hierarchy (pp. 31-32). Gilstrap sees the initial move to team-

based leadership models as an explicit outgrowth of chaos theory in organizations because of the

dispersed nature of authority and information flows that allow for greater adaptability to

changing conditions (p. 25). He sees the secondary movement from a pure team structure to a

hybrid of team and traditional hierarchy as from a completely unbounded state to a “cycling state

of bounded chaos” (p. 45) that retains the energy and input of a less hierarchical structure while

also preventing the mission creep that can result from a total absence of central direction (p. 47).

This also allows the library’s organization to maintain dynamism while also intersecting

appropriately with the larger hierarchy of the university of which it is a part. Gilstrap’s case

study supports P1 in demonstrating the need for new models given changing technology and

organizational demands. It supports P2 in developing a bounded chaos model along the lines of

an edge of chaos understanding. Finally, it supports P3 in emphasizing the value of community

building, consensus-based decision-making, dispersed knowledge, noncoercion, nonhierarchy,

and nonomniscience in a real and contemporary organizational environment. Thinking back to

the RQ, Gilstrap’s bounded cycling model demonstrates how a chaos theory approach informs

the weak leadership framework by supporting each of its core premises.

Chaordic crisis management in a midwestern school. Published in 2015, Yi-Hwa Liou

applies a chaos theory analytical lens to a case study of a crisis at a midwestern PK-12 school.


Liou argues that in the context of school administration a nonlinear, adaptable approach to crisis

management with dispersed authority and feedback from the external environment – including

risk-taking – proves far more effective than a traditional Newtonian, hierarchical model. “In the

daily administration of schools,” she states, “the only certainty is that there is no certainty” (p.

248). Following the death of a student after a discus accident, Liou demonstrates how the official

crisis plan quickly showed itself to be inadequate as events unfolded in unpredictable ways.

Because the incident took place after hours, for instance, communication with the district was

limited. As with Anderson (1999) and Burns (1999), Liou concludes that organizations are

always either preparing for, in, or recovering from crisis, and should seek to find a resting place

on the edge of chaos – what she terms a “chaordic” state (p. 276). This allows for ongoing

reference points to the organization’s core mission coupled with continual assessment of – and

appropriate modification to – internal and external conditions of change. Liou’s case study

supports P1 in making the case that school settings are always presenting an organizational

environment of uncertainty and decentralized information ill-suited for strong leadership

approaches. It supports P2 in developing a chaordic model again similar to the edge of chaos.

Finally, it supports P3 in emphasizing the value of community building, consensus-based

decision-making, dispersed knowledge, noncoercion, nonhierarchy, and nonomniscience in a real

and contemporary organizational environment. Liou’s chaordic state offers an answer to the RQ

that presents an alternate, but complementary, approach to that of Gilstrap (2013).

It is out of this combination of theoretical and practical research in phases one and two

that we can begin to pull from these disparate studies some actionable insights for leaders

seeking to employ chaos theory in the internal and external organizational environment as part of

a weak leadership framework. In the discussion that follows, insights are offered from the phase


one and phase two research separately, and then these are combined to develop a new model of

the chaordic state.

Discussion

Phase One: Six Key Insights from a Review of Chaos Theory Research

Each of the six key insights emerging from the articles included in the REA can be translated

into practical advice that leaders can take from the application of chaos theory to the

organizational environment as they move from a Newtonian to a chaos approach. Figure 1

depicts this shift, with the Newtonian approach on the left and the alternative chaos approach on

the right. The six shifts include movement from:

Causation to uncertainty – in both Verwey et al. (2002) and Pellissier (2012), a strong

emphasis is placed upon moving away from viewing strategic planning in terms of direct

cause and effect. Instead, managers must recognize that change (both within the

organization and external to it) is constant and plan accordingly. This involves less

development of long-term plans that must be overseen and implemented step-by-step and

more ongoing strategic shifts in response to changing conditions.

Narrative control to feedback loops – related to the ongoing strategic shifts mentioned

earlier, communications both internal and external must not be rigidly controlled. Instead,

the goal is to solicit feedback from a broad spectrum of inputs and use these to engage in

dialogue rather than monologue. Verwey et al. (2002) highlight this regarding how to

handle public relations crises, pointing out that engaging in one-way communications or

closing them off entirely leaves organizations unable to gain important information and

unable to respond in timely and appropriate ways.

Linear to nonlinear thinking – Verwey et al. (2002), Burns (1999), and Anderson (1999)

all discuss the need to not think in linear terms. This is not unlike causation, but more


specific to the path to any ends. As Anderson puts it, the goal for leaders should not be to

control the route to a destination (because a straight line from point A to point B is

essentially impossible to follow in a dynamic environment), but instead to use the

institution’s core values and primary goals as broad parameters to guide responsive

creativity among employees (1999, p. 46).

Hierarchy to nonhierarchical structures – Because of the need for ongoing information

inputs in a constantly changing environment, no one leader or small inner circle of

leaders can know and respond to everything. In this environment, employees at all levels

must be involved as information-gatherers and creative solution developers. Anderson

(1999), Burns (1999), and Pellissier (2012) all encourage this shift.

Planning to adaptation and evolution – The entire concept of strategic planning is called

into question by Anderson (1999) and Pellissier (2012). Because of the nonlinear and

uncertain nature of reality a more pragmatic approach is to begin moving in a direction

rooted in your organization’s values and purpose and adapt and evolve as conditions alter

and additional information arrives.

Stagnation or anarchy to the edge of chaos – Anderson (1999) and Burns (1999) see this

nimbler approach as operating at the edge of chaos. In so doing, organizations avoid the

two traps of total chaos or total standstill – both of which could be responses to a

radically and continually shifting environment, and both of which lead to institutional

disintegration. Those in organizational leadership must therefore seek to find temporary

islands of stability amid a sea of perpetual motion and change. To do this, they must

release themselves from a single-minded pursuit of rigid strategic goals.

- Verwey, Crystal, &

Bloom (2002)- Pellissier

(2012)


Change / Uncertainty / Unpredictability

Iterative feedback loops of communication and

adaptation

Mechanistic / Newtonian / Causal relationship

Worldview


Bloom (2002)


Bloom (2002)- Anderson

(1999)- Burns (1999)

- Burns (2002)- Anderson

(1999)- Pellissier

(2012)

- Anderson (1999)

- Pellissier (2012)

- Burns (2002)- Anderson

(1999)


Change and Uncertainty

Control the narrative

Linear Nonlinear

Hierarchy Nonhierarchical

Strategic planningAdaptation and evolution

Edge of Chaos / Dynamism / Vitality

Stagnation or Anarchy

Figure 1. Shifting to the new paradigm of chaos theory in management.


Phase Two: Consistent Themes Within the Contemporary Case Studies of Chaos Theory

The heaviest concluding emphasis of both Liou (2015) and Gilstrap (2013) is upon the

need for organizations to develop an operational approach that avoids institutional disintegration

by either anarchy or stagnation, but instead to thrive within ever-shifting islands of stability on

the edge of chaos. While they employ slightly different terminology – Gilstrap’s bounded chaos

and Liou’s chaordic state, the underlying principle is both consistent across the two authors as

well as with the phase one research theme. This is important for leaders to understand because in

many ways the other themes flow from this conclusion. How can an organization avoid

succumbing to chaos or ossification? By adopting a chaos-informed approach that includes an

embrace of uncertainty, open and iterative communication, nonlinearity, nonhierarchy, and

adaptability at the edge of chaos. In this way, both authors support both P1 and P2, and answer

the RQ.

Gilstrap (2013) and Liou (2015) also echo the remaining five key insights from previous

research into chaos theory. It is possible to see these themes throughout their analyses of two

distinct, contemporary cases – a university research library staff experiencing structural

reorganization and a midwestern PK-12 school responding to a crisis – and as such they address

an important concern about the lack of contemporary analysis in the phase one search. Gilstrap

uses technological change and Liou the nature of school administration to emphasize the

uncertainty and unpredictability of these organizational environments. Gilstrap discusses the

importance of ongoing and dispersed communication both internally and with the larger

university and culture while Liou sees this taking place within the context of school employees

communicating through both formal and informal channels. Liou identifies both the initial crisis

and its aftermath as a series of nonlinear outcomes that require responses outside of narrow


protocols, and Gilstrap sees the pace of technological change as operating outside of simple

cause and effect. Liou suggests that school crisis teams needed to be empowered to not only

make decisions in the absence of formal school district hierarchies, but to take risks as needed,

while Gilstrap sees strict hierarchies as standing in the way of adaptability to change. Following

from this, Gilstrap sees ongoing adaptation as crucial to organizational viability, and Liou frames

this in terms of the ever-present threat of crises that demand preparation but for which it is

impossible to fully prepare. In the next section, the insights from Gilstrap and Liou are combined

with those of the phase one research to develop a new model for organizational leadership.

Living into the Chaordic State: Chaos Theory as a Component of Weak Leadership

With these themes both clearly evident in the phase one broad research literature search

and the phase two narrow contemporary case study search it is possible to begin to see whether

they line up with the basic premises of a weak leadership framework and what organizational

implications flow from such an interconnection. Though they draw from a broader literature of

leadership theory, the six premises of weak leadership – community building, consensus-based

decision-making, dispersed knowledge, noncoercion, nonhierarchy, and nonomniscience –

nonetheless clearly align with the key themes of chaos theory applied to the organizational

environment. As such, chaos theory serves as a foundational component of a weak leadership

framework, meeting the conditions of P3. Community building, consensus-based decision-

making, dispersed knowledge, and nonomniscience all connect with open and iterative

communication in that such an approach runs counter to strict control over information flows

based an assumption of the centrality of knowledge. Noncoercion and nonhierarchy connect with

the nonhierarchical theme of chaos theory and are related to the need for adaptability in the face

of uncertainty to maintain dynamism amid ever-present change.


Figure 2 includes both a listing of these themes as well as a graphic depiction of how they

combine to depict a model of a chaordic organizational state within the framework of weak

leadership. The central sphere represents this edge of chaos context – the chaotic cycling

suggested by Gilstrap (2013) between complete chaos and complete stasis, both of which can be

deadly to an organization. Within these are subunits of leadership rather than a single and central

authority. This dispersed leadership facilitates open and iterative communication both within the

internal organizational environment and with the external environment to facilitate community

building and the incorporation of additional information and insights that allow for ongoing

innovation and adaptability.


Figure 2. Model of the chaordic state: Chaos theory as a component of weak leadership.


Implications for Research and Practice

While McKelvey’s (1999) challenge to the evidence basis for applying chaos theory to

organizations is both legitimate and disconcerting within the context of the phase one research,

the phase two case studies from within the last five years add significant weight to the validity of

the theory’s analytical conclusions and move the concept beyond merely a passing fad. It is also

true that the fundamental nature of chaos theory may work against empiricism, and case study

analyses may therefore simply be more appropriate than other measures. The implication for

leadership research, though, is that it may be worthwhile to attempt other methodologies

including quantitative analyses of firm survival and profitability to test the theory in practice and

determine whether a broader base of support can be developed.

For leaders, the primary implication of this REA is to exercise caution in acting on the

assumptions of the culturally dominant strong model of leadership – that one individual can

possess all the information necessary to make informed decisions, that organizations operate

most effectively when actions and communication are controlled from the top down, and that the

static nature of the organizational environment means that it is possible to establish clear goals

and navigate toward them on the basis of sheer will and determination. To reflect back upon

weak leadership’s theological origins, Caputo (2016) writes, “the counterpart of the weakness of

God is the responsibility this weakness imposes on us to be strong, to assume responsibility for

ourselves, to take charge of our lives, to answer the call that is issued in the name of God” (p.

36). The weak leader should therefore yield control where possible to cultivate leadership among

others. Scholar practitioners can and should apply the lessons available from this research

suggesting alternative models to the strong leader approach in their organizations and assess their

effectiveness on an ongoing basis.


Limitations

It is possible that further research either disproving chaos theory as an approach to

organizational structure or providing significantly stronger empirical support could have been

found if a full systematic review were conducted. A limitation of this study is that to provide

reasonably sound results in a timely manner some research was undoubtedly overlooked. In

addition, it may be the case that weak leadership as a framework is effective only contextually

and the studies included in the REA represent a specific subset rather than a representative

sample.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was to answer the RQ: How does the application of chaos

theory within the internal and external organizational environments inform a weak leadership

framework? The six shifts identified above in the broad research literature review – from

causation to certainty; from narrative control to feedback loops; from linear to nonlinear

thinking; from hierarchy to nonhierarchical structures; from planning to adaptation and

evolution; and from stagnation or anarchy to the edge of chaos – both find confirmation in

contemporary case studies (P1, P2) and align with the central premises of weak leadership –

community building, consensus-based decision-making, dispersed knowledge, noncoercion,

nonhierarchy, and nonomniscience. Chaos theory is therefore shown as a foundational

component of a weak framework for leadership in the internal and external environment, and the

model of a chaordic state offers practitioners a graphic depiction of how to operationalize the

concept (P3). Researchers and practitioners can build upon and further refine this model by

studying its use in the field.


Answering this RQ is significant because if it is true that the great leader narrative is

simultaneously both compelling and problematic, the work of practitioners and scholars is to

build a body of practice and research to improve organizational vitality and longevity into a

cohesive counter narrative that is at least equally if not more compelling. This paper is a first step

toward that larger goal, and further research is warranted to both contribute to this project and

test its validity.

Future Research

To address the limitations inherent in a REA, a clear area for further research is to

conduct a full systematic review of the subject. Conducting or identifying existing research

utilizing quantitative measures would help address the concerns that have been raised about the

methodological soundness of chaos theory’s application to organizational leadership.

In addition, chaos theory is only one component of a weak leadership framework. An

additional area for further research is to investigate the other components in greater depth to

determine whether they also align with the premises and if so to what extent. Then it would also

be appropriate to begin the same kind of case study analyses of organizational environments to

see whether weak leadership both coheres as an overall framework and provides improved

outcomes for organizations either in specific contexts or across a range of institutional situations,

cultures, and populations.


References

Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3),

216-232. https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.3.216

Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership: The theoretical foundation of a contemporary

construct. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(1), 50-

60. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000283120730434

Bazerman, M.H. (2006) Judgment in managerial decision making. New York, NY: Wiley.

Burns, J.S. (2002). Chaos theory and leadership studies: Exploring uncharted seas. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 42-56.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900204

Caputo, J. D. (2006). The weakness of God: A theology of the event. Bloomington, IN: Indiana

University Press.

Caputo, J. D. (2013). The insistence of God: A theology of perhaps. Bloomington, IN: Indiana

Univ. Press.

Daft, R. L., Murphy, J., & Willmott, H. (2010). Organization theory and design. Andover:

Thomson South-Western.

Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., and Van Aken, J. E. (2008). Developing design propositions through

research synthesis. Organization Studies, 29(3), 393-413.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840607088020

Fraser, Sherry. (2014). "Authentic Leadership in Higher Education: Influencing the Development

of Future Leaders" (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St. John Fisher College,

Rochester, NY. Retrieved from http://fisherpub.sjfc.edu

http://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/

https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840607088020

https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900204

https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000283120730434

https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.3.216


Gentry, M. E. (1982). Consensus as a form of decision making. Journal of Sociology and Social

Welfare, 9(2), 233-244. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw

Gilchrist, A. (2000). The well-connected community: Networking to the edge of

chaos. Community Development Journal, 35(3), 264-275.

https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1093/cdj/35.3.264

Gilstrap, D. L. (2013). Leadership and decision-making in team-based organizations: A model of

bounded chaotic cycling in emerging system states. Emergence: Complexity &

Organization, 15(3), 24-54. Retrieved from http://journal.emergentpublications.com/

Gleick, J. (1988). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin.

Gleeson, B. (2016, November 9). 10 unique perspectives on what makes a great leader. Forbes.

Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/brentgleeson/2016/11/09/10-unique-

perspectives-on-what-makes-a-great-leader/#6d9e5d4c5dd1

Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews. London:

Sage.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2010). Servant leadership. In G. R. Hickman (Ed.), Leading organizations:

Perspectives for a new era (2nd ed., pp. 87-95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gunter, H. (1995). Jurassic management: Chaos and management development in educational

institutions. Journal of Educational Administration, 33(4), 5-20.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578239510147333

Hare, A. P. (1973). Group decision by consensus: Reaching unity in the Society of

Friends. Sociological Inquiry, 43(1), 75-84. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-

682X.1973.tb01153.x

https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1973.tb01153.x

https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1973.tb01153.x

https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578239510147333

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brentgleeson/2016/11/09/10-unique-perspectives-on-what-makes-a-great-leader/#6d9e5d4c5dd1

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brentgleeson/2016/11/09/10-unique-perspectives-on-what-makes-a-great-leader/#6d9e5d4c5dd1

http://journal.emergentpublications.com/

https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1093/cdj/35.3.264

http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw


Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519-

530. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-9749-1.50005-3

Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the "L" word in higher

education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 31(6), 1-218.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3106

Liou, Y. (2015). School crisis management: A model of dynamic responsiveness to crisis life

cycle. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(2), 247-289.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X14532467

Malloch, K. (2010). Innovation leadership: New perspectives for new work. Nursing Clinics of

North America, 45(1), 1-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cnur.2009.10.001

McKelvey, B. (1999). Complexity theory in organization science: Seizing the promise or

becoming a fad? Emergence, 1(1), 5-32. https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327000em0101_2

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting

Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med,

6(7): e1000097. https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097

Pellissier, R. (2012). A proposed frame of reference for complexity management as opposed to

the established linear management strategies. International Journal of Organizational

Innovation, 5(2), 6-67. Retrieved from http://www.ijoi-online.org/

Scopus. (2017). Complexity Theory and Organization Science. Retrieved June 15, 2017, from

http://www.scopus.com/

Skidmore, M. S. (2006). Great Man Theory. In F. W. English (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

Educational Leadership and Administration (pp. 438-439). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

http://www.scopus.com/

http://www.ijoi-online.org/

https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097

https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327000em0101_2

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cnur.2009.10.001

https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X14532467

https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3106

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-9749-1.50005-3


Spector, B. A. (2016). Carlyle, Freud, and the Great Man Theory more fully

considered. Leadership, 12(2), 250-260. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1742715015571392

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

challenge to systems thinking? London: Routledge.

Sullivan, T. J. (2004). The viability of using various system theories to describe organisational

change. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(1), 43-54.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230410517468

Thiétart, R. A., & Forgues, B. (1995). Chaos theory and organization. Organization Science,

6(1), 19-31. https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.1.19

Thomas, J., & Mengel, T. (2008). Preparing project managers to deal with complexity –

advanced project management education. International Journal of Project

Management, 26(3), 304-315. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.01.001

Verwey, P. S., Crystal, A., & Bloom, E. (2002). Chaos and crisis: The Swiss Bank case

study. Communicatio: South African Journal for Communication Theory &

Research, 28(2), 28-42. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02500160208537940

https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02500160208537940

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.01.001


https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230410517468

https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1742715015571392


Appendix A

References Discovered in the Phase One Rapid Evidence Search

* Indicates the five primary articles used in the discussion section

*Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization

Science, 10(3), 216-232. https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.3.216

Briggs, J., & Peat, F. D. (1989). Turbulent mirror: An illustrated guide to chaos theory and the

science of wholeness. New York: Harper & Row.

*Burns, J.S. (2002). Chaos theory and leadership studies: Exploring uncharted seas. Journal of


https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900204

Gilchrist, A. (2000). The well-connected community: Networking to the edge of

chaos. Community Development Journal, 35(3), 264-275.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdj/35.3.264

Gleick, J. (1988). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin.

Gunter, H. (1995). Jurassic management: Chaos and management development in educational

institutions. Journal of Educational Administration, 33(4), 5-20.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578239510147333

Hale, R., & Bowerman, J. (2016). Action learning questions: Making sense of organizational

chaos. Journal of Eastern European & Central Asian Research, 3(2), 1-5.

https://dx.doi.org/10.15549/jeecar.v3i2.143

Jaafari, A. (2003). Project management in the age of complexity and change. Project

Management Journal, 34(4), 47-57. Retrieved

from https://www.pmi.org/learning/publications/project-management-journal

https://www.pmi.org/learning/publications/project-management-journal

https://dx.doi.org/10.15549/jeecar.v3i2.143

https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578239510147333

https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdj/35.3.264

https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900204



Karakas, F. (2007). The twenty-first century leader: Social artist, spiritual visionary, and cultural

innovator. Global Business & Organizational Excellence, 26(3), 44-50.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joe.20143

Kiel, L. D. (1997). Chaos theory in the social sciences: Foundations and applications. Ann

Arbor, Mich: Univ. of Michigan Press.

Lewin, R. (1992). Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. New York: Macmillan Pub. Co.

*McKelvey, B. (1999). Complexity theory in organization science: Seizing the promise or

becoming a fad? Emergence, 1(1), 5-32. https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327000em0101_2

Peak, D., & Frame, M. (1994). Chaos under control: Art and science of complexity. New York:

W. H. Freeman.

*Pellissier, R. (2012). A proposed frame of reference for complexity management as opposed to

the established linear management strategies. International Journal of Organizational

Innovation, 5(2), 6-67. Retrieved from http://www.ijoi-online.org/

Samli, A. C. (2006). Surviving in chaotic modern markets: Strategic considerations in turbulent

times. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14(4), 315-322.

https://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679140405

Smith, A. D. (2011). Strategic aspects of contingency planning in chaotic environments and

systems: Multi-case study. International Journal of Business and Systems Research, 5(5),

423-442. https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBSR.2011.042092

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

challenge to systems thinking? London: Routledge.

Stewart, I. (1989). Does god play dice?: The mathematics of chaos. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBSR.2011.042092

https://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679140405

http://www.ijoi-online.org/

https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327000em0101_2

https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joe.20143


Sullivan, T. J. (2004). The viability of using various system theories to describe organisational

change. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(1), 43-54.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230410517468

Thomas, J., & Mengel, T. (2008). Preparing project managers to deal with complexity –

advanced project management education. International Journal of Project

Management, 26(3), 304-315. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.01.001

*Verwey, P. S., Crystal, A., & Bloom, E. (2002). Chaos and crisis: The Swiss Bank case

study. Communicatio: South African Journal for Communication Theory &

Research, 28(2), 28-42. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02500160208537940

Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an

orderly universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02500160208537940

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.01.001

https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230410517468


Appendix B

Weight of Evidence Analysis Table for Phase One

(Articles with * included in discussion section)

#

StudyWoE A: Relevance to the review

WoE B: Rigor or soundness of methodology and publication

WoE C: Appropriateness of study design for review

Score

1

*Anderson, 1999

High: Attempt to directly relate chaos theory to organizational management

Medium: Advancing a theoretical framework in a peer-reviewed journal

Medium: Literature review

Medium-High

2

Briggs & Peat, 1989

Low: Foundational theory text, not directly relevant to management in a global setting

Medium: Academic book by major press

Low: Theoretical overview

Low-Medium

3

*Burns, 2002


Medium: Clear analysis in peer-reviewed journal, but no attempt to root conclusions in empirical evidence

Medium: Historical case study

Medium-High

4

Gilchrist, 2000

Medium: Discusses chaos theory in relation to community development, not organizational environment

Medium: Neither empirical test nor systematic review of evidence. In peer-reviewed journal.

Medium: Advances theory, but provides no empirical testing

Medium

5 Gleick, 1988 Low: Foundational

Medium: Academic book


Low-Medium


theory text, not directly relevant to management in a global setting

by major press

6 Gunter, 1995 High: Attempt to directly relate chaos theory to organizational management


Low: Advances theory, but provides no empirical testing

Medium

7

Hale & Bowerman, 2016

Low: No specific discussion of chaos theory


Low: Interview/Case study

Low-Medium

8

Jaafari, 2003




Medium

9

Karakas, 2007


Low: Neither empirical test nor systematic review of evidence. Not clear that journal is peer-reviewed.


Medium-Low

10

Kiel, 1997

Unable to obtain - Foundational theory text, not directly relevant to management in a global setting

Unable to obtain Unable to obtain Unable to

obtain


11

Lewin, 1992

Low: Foundational theory text, not directly relevant to management in a global setting

Medium: Academic book by major press


Low-Medium

12

*McKelvey, 1999

High: Critique of complexity as a theoretical model for understanding organizations

Medium: Critique of a theoretical framework in a peer-reviewed journal

Medium: critiques lack of empirical basis for theory, but does not test directly

Medium-High

13

Peak & Frame, 1994

Unable to obtain - Foundational theory text, not directly relevant to management in a global setting


obtain

14

*Pellissier, 2012



Medium: Literature review

Medium-High

15

Samli, 2006




Medium

16 Smith, 2011 Unable to obtain


obtain17

Stacey, Griffin, & Shaw, 2000


Medium: Advancing a theoretical framework in a book


Medium

18 Stewart, 1989 Unable to obtain - Foundational theory text, not

Unable to obtain

Unable to obtain Unable to obtain


directly relevant to management in a global setting

19

Sullivan, 2004




Medium

20

Thomas & Mengel, 2008




Medium

21

*Verwey, Crystal, & Bloom, 2002


Medium: Clear analysis in peer-reviewed journal, but no attempt to root conclusions in empirical evidence

Medium: Historical case study

Medium-High

22

Wheatley, 1992

Unable to obtain – Attempt to relate chaos theory to leadership


obtain


Appendix C

PRISMA Flow Chart for Phase One Search

Records identified through database searching (n = 123 )

Scre

enin

g In

clud

ed

Elig

ibili

ty

Iden

tific

atio

n

Additional records identified through other sources

(n = 12 )

Records after duplicates removed (n = 123 )

Records screened (n = 123 )

Records excluded (n = 102 )

Full-text articles assessed for eligibility

(n = 21 )

Full-text articles excluded, with reasons

(n = 16)

Studies included in qualitative synthesis

(n = 5 )

Studies included in quantitative synthesis

(meta-analysis) (n = 0 )

Figure C1. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA)

diagram shows the author’s search strategy. Adapted from “The Preferred Reporting Items for

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement”, by D. Moher, A. Liberati, J.

Tetzlaff, D. G. Altmann, and The PRISMA Group, 2009, PLoS Med, 6, p. 3, Copyright 2009 by

The PRISMA Group. Adapted under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License,

which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original author and source are credited.


Appendix D

References Discovered in the Phase Two Rapid Evidence Search

* Indicates the two primary articles used in the discussion section

Burns, J.S. (2002). Chaos theory and leadership studies: Exploring uncharted seas. Journal of


https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900204

Cantú, Y., Rocha, P., & Martinez, M. A. (2016). Shock, chaos, and change. Journal of Cases in

Educational Leadership. 19(2), 75–81. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1555458915626762

Cutright, M. (2001). Chaos theory & higher education: Leadership, planning, & policy. New

York: P. Lang.

Forrest, L. M. (2008). The five-year change process at a secondary school: A case study

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

*Gilstrap, D. L. (2013). Leadership and decision-making in team-based organizations: A model

of bounded chaotic cycling in emerging system states. Emergence: Complexity &

Organization, 15(3), 24-54. Retrieved from http://journal.emergentpublications.com/

Lichtenstein, B. M. (1997). Grace, magic and miracles: A 'chaotic logic' of organizational

transformation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10(5), 393-411.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534819710177495

*Liou, Y. (2015). School crisis management: A model of dynamic responsiveness to crisis life

cycle. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(2), 247-289.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X14532467

https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X14532467

https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534819710177495

http://journal.emergentpublications.com/

https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1555458915626762

https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900204


Owen, R. C. (2009). New sciences-based leadership and student success in California's

community colleges (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of La Verne, La

Verne, CA.

Poole, D., & Pratt, G. (1999). The business of internationalisation: Emerging issues for the

entrepreneurial university. Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Seattle,

WA, May 30-June 3. Seattle, WA: Association for Institutional Research.

Raagmaa, G. (2001). Public leaders in regional economic development. European Planning

Studies, 9(8), 1039-1054. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965431012009334

Sopko, L. J. (2010). The great data dump: An exploratory case study of the transfer of tacit and

'know-how' knowledge from a retiring workforce in a government agency (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). Walden University, Minneapolis, MN.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965431012009334


Appendix E

Weight of Evidence Analysis Table for Phase Two Case Study Analysis

(Articles with * included in discussion section)

#

StudyWoE A: Relevance to the review

WoE B: Rigor or soundness of methodology and publication

WoE C: Appropriateness of study design for review

Score

1

Cantú, Rocha, & Martinez, 2016

Low: Does not directly relate to chaos theory

Low: Analysis of case left to reader in a peer-reviewed journal

High: Case study Low-Medium

2

*Gilstrap, 2013

High: Directly relates chaos theory to leadership in a contemporary situation

High: Application of theory to real situation in a peer-reviewed journal

High: Case study High

3

Lichtenstein, 1997

Medium: Not direct example of use of chaos theory in leadership, but instead discussion of its apparent role in organizational transformation

Medium: Narrative analysis of narrative cases in a peer-reviewed journal

Medium: Indirect case studies – analyses of narratives shared by others

Medium

4

*Liou, 2015

High: Directly relates chaos theory to leadership in a contemporary situation

High: Application of theory to real situation in a peer-reviewed journal

High: Case study High

5 Raagmaa, 2001 Low: Only tangentially references chaos theory – no sense in which author or subject of

Medium: Case study of a mayor in a rural town in Estonia

High: Case study Medium


study have significant understanding of concept


Appendix F

PRISMA Flow Chart for Phase Two Search

Records identified through database

searching (n = 12)

Scre

enin

g In

clud

ed

Elig

ibili

ty

Iden

tific

atio

n

Additional records identified through other sources

(n = 0)

Records after duplicates removed (n = 10)

Records screened (n = 10)

Records excluded (n = 5)

Full-text articles assessed for eligibility

(n = 5)

Full-text articles excluded, with reasons

(n = 3)

Studies included in qualitative synthesis

(n = 2)

Studies included in quantitative synthesis

(meta-analysis) (n = 0)

Figure F1. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA)

diagram shows the author’s search strategy. Adapted from “The Preferred Reporting Items for

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement”, by D. Moher, A. Liberati, J.

Tetzlaff, D. G. Altmann, and The PRISMA Group, 2009, PLoS Med, 6, p. 3, Copyright 2009 by

The PRISMA Group. Adapted under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License,

which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original author and source are credited.

irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com · web viewtheory than a statement of faith,” as bert alan spector...

Documents