cas interactive perspective

7/29/2019 CAS Interactive Perspective

1/14

University of Nebraska - Lincoln

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Management Department Faculty Publications Management Department

11-1-2006

Complexity leadership theory: An interactiveperspective on leading in complex adaptive systems

Benyamin B. LichtensteinUniversity of Massachuses

Mary Uhl-BienUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected]

Russ MarionClemson University

Anson SeersVirginia Commonwealth University

James Douglas OrtonGeorge Washington University

See next page for additional authors

Follow this and additional works at: hp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub

Tis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Management Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has

been accepted for inclusion in Management Department Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of

Nebraska - Lincoln.

Lichtenstein, Benyamin B.; Uhl-Bien, Mary; Marion, Russ; Seers, Anson; Orton, James Douglas; and Schreiber, Craig, "Complexityleadership theory: An interactive perspective on l eading in complex adaptive systems" (2006).Management Department Faculty

Publications. Paper 8.hp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/8
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementdept?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/8?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/8?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementdept?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


2/14

Authors

Benyamin B. Lichtenstein, Mary Uhl-Bien, Russ Marion, Anson Seers, James Douglas Orton, and CraigSchreiber

Tis article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: hp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/8
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/8?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/8?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fmanagementfacpub%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


3/14

Published in Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 8:4 (2006), pp. 2-12.

Copyright 2006 Institute for the Study of Coherence & Emergence; published by Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates. Used by permission.


4/14

E:CO Vol. 8 No. 4 2006 pp. 2-12

Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspectiveon leading in complex adaptive systemsBenyamin B. Lichtenstein1, Mary Uhl-Bien2, Russ Marion3, Anson Seers4, James DouglasOrton5, and Craig Schreiber61 University o Massachusetts; 2 University o Nebraska-Lincoln; 3 Clemson University; 4 Virginia Commonwealth University; 5 Te

George Washington University; 6 Carnegie Mellon University, USA

raditional, hierarchical views o leadership areless and less useul given the complexities o ourmodern world. Leadership theory must transi-tion to new perspectives that account or thecomplex adaptive needs o organizations. In thispaper, we propose that leadership (as opposedto leaders) can be seen as a complex dynamicprocess that emerges in the interactive spacesbetween people and ideas. Tat is, leadershipis a dynamic that transcends the capabilities o

individuals alone; it is the product o interaction,tension, and exchange rules governing changesin perceptions and understanding. We label thisa dynamic o adaptive leadership, and we showhow this dynamic provides important insightsabout the nature o leadership and its outcomesin organizational felds. We defne a leadershipevent as a perceived segment o action whosemeaning is created by the interactions o actorsinvolved in producing it, and we present a set oinnovative methods or capturing and analyzing

these contextually driven processes. We providetheoretical and practical implications o theseideas or organizational behavior and organiza-

tion and management theory.

Introduction

As twenty-rst-century management contin-ues to emphasize decentralized organizingstructures and co-evolutionary ecologies

o rms, institutions, and markets, there is a grow-ing recognition that traditional top-down theories

o leadership are at best overly simplistic (Osbornet al., 2002). Tat is, leading-edge theorists and theleaders they inorm are questioning the assump-tion that the essence o leadership rests within thecharacter or the characteristic behaviors o efec-tive supervisors (Seers, 2004). Worse, the notionthat a leader exogenously acts on organizationsin order to achieve the leaders objectives may bemisguided in the presence o the insight that orga-nizations are highly complex and nonlinear (Meyer

Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systemsE:CO Issue Vol. 8 No. 4 2006 pp. 212

et al., 2005). Tere is also a growing realization thatefective leadership does not necessarily residewithin the leaders symbolic, motivational, or char-ismatic actions.

I leadership is not in a leader or doneby a leader, however, how are we to insightullyconceive exactly what constitutes leadership androm where it originates? A novel approach oranswering these questions is grounded in com-plexity science, namely the notion that leader-

ship is an emergent event, an outcome ofrelationalinteractions among agents. In this view, lead-ership is more than a skill, an exchange, or asymbol leadership emerges through dynamicinteractions (Bradbury and Lichtenstein, 2000).Complexity leadership theory investigates therole o leadership in expediting those processesin organizations through which interdependentactions among many individuals combine intoa collective venture (Drath, 2001; Meyer et al.,2005).

Founding the approach o this paper oncomplexity theoryper se moves us to a whole-systems view and thus away rom the more tra-ditional approaches that ocus on variables andcomponent parts. Instead, we will ocus on:

Expanding the locus o leadership rom theisolated, role-based actions o individuals tothe innovative, contextual interactions thatoccur across an entire social system;

Extending current theory and practice by

ocusing on micro-strategic leadership actionsacross all organizational levels and across orga-nizational boundaries;

Increasing the relevance and accuracy oleadership theory by exploring how leadershipoutcomes are based on complex interactions,rather than independent variables;

Highlighting the relational oundations ochange in emerging organizational elds,

Practitioner


5/14

Lichtenstein, Uhl-Bien, Marion, Seers, Orton, & Schreiber

through the idea that leadership occurs in thespaces between agents;

Providing a new and rich oundation orexplaining the constructive process o collec-tive action as well as the inuential behaviorso collective actors;

Connecting to innovative methodologies thatcan enrich our understanding o how leader-ship gets enacted and received in complexenvironments.

Toward a new era in leadership: Complexity

leadership theory

Leadership study, indeed society in general, isinatuated with leaders people who occupysome elevated status or position and to whom

we ofen ascribe some orm o greatness (Gronn,

2002). Te Western mindset about leaders seemsruled by assumptions that leaders have some innatecapacity to plan utures, arrive at rational and cor-rect decisions (Bluedorn, 2002), and control socialoutcomes (Meindl et al., 1985).

A new mindset is beginning to emerge,however, which recognizes that social processesare too complex and messy to be attributed to asingle individual or pre-planned streams o events(Finkelstein, 2002; Marion and Uhl-Bien, 2001). AsFinkelstein (2002: 77) put it:

I understand that as researchers we need to simpliyvery complex processes to study them careully, butwhat are we le with when we remove the messiness,the back-and-orth, the reality?

Although the complexity leadershipapproach redirects emphasis away rom the indi-vidual as leader, it does not in any way diminishthe importance o leadership as an organizationalphenomenon; rather, it recognizes that leadershiptranscends the individual by being undamentally a

system phenomenon (Marion and Uhl-Bien, 2001,2003; Uhl-Bien et al., 2004; Hazy, 2006). Drawingrom complexity science (Marion, 1999), complexityleadership theory oers a new perspective or leader-ship research by considering leadership within theramework o the idea o a complex adaptive system(CAS). In such systems, relationships are not pri-marily dened hierarchically, as they are in bureau-cratic systems, but rather by interactions amongheterogeneous agents and across agent networks.

A CAS is comprised o agents, individu-als as well as groups o individuals, who resonatethrough sharing common interests, knowledgeand/or goals due to their history o interactionand sharing o worldviews. Agents respond toboth external pressures (rom environment orrom other CAS or agents, e.g., leaders) and inter-

nal pressures that are generated as the agentsstruggle with interdependency and resulting con-icting constraints (e.g., when the needs o oneagent conict with those o another). Tese ten-sions, when spread across a network o interactiveand interdependent agents, generate system-wideemergent learnings, capabilities, innovations, andadaptability. Importantly, such elaborations areproducts ointeractions among agents, rather thanbeing caused by the specic acts o individualsdescribed as leaders.

A complex systems perspective introducesa new leadership logic to leadership theory andresearch by understanding leadership in terms oan emergent event rather than a person. A com-plexity view suggests a orm o distributed lead-ership (Brown and Gioia, 2002; Gronn, 2002) thatdoes not lie in a person but rather in an interactivedynamic, within which any particular person willparticipate as leader or a ollower at dierent timesand or dierent purposes. It is not limited to a or-mal managerial role, but rather emerges in the sys-

temic interactions between heterogeneous agents(Marion and Uhl-Bien, 2001, 2003). Tereore,complexity leadership includes a descriptiveanalysis examining the conditions and dynamicprocesses o these interactions and the emergentphenomena that they call orth:

Tere is a growing sense that efective organizationchange has its own dynamic, a process that cannotsimply ollow strategic shis and that is longer andsubtler than can be managed by any single leader. Itis generated by the insights o many people trying toimprove the whole, and it accumulates, as it were, overlong periods.(Heckscher, 1994: 24)

In other words, leaders in the ormal sense canenable the conditions within which the processoccurs, but they are not the direct source o change.

A key contribution o a complexity leader-ship theory is that it provides an integrativetheoretical ramework or explaining interactive


6/14

E:CO Vol. 8 No. 4 2006 pp. 2-12

dynamics that have been acknowledged by a vari-ety o emerging leadership theories, e.g., sharedleadership (Pearce and Conger, 2003), collectiveleadership (Weick and Roberts, 1993), distributedleadership (Gronn, 2002), relational leadership(Drath, 2001; Uhl-Bien, in press), adaptive leader-ship (Linsky and Heietz, 2002; Uhl-Bien et al.,

2004), and leadership as an emergent organiza-tional meta-capability (Hazy, 2004, 2006).

Specifying the interactive nature of leadership

in events

Adaptive leadership is dened or this paper as aninteractive event in which knowledge, action pre-erences, and behaviors change, thereby provokingan organization to become more adaptive. Tisdenition ocuses on change, as many denitionso leadership already do (Bryman, 1996), but also

distinguishes between leadership (as a product ointeractive dynamics) and leaders (people whoinuence this process). As such, adaptive leader-ship does not mean getting ollowers to ollow theleaders wishes; rather, leadership occurs wheninteracting agents generate adaptive outcomes.According to this denition, leadership can occuranywhere within a social system. It need not beauthority or position based, but is instead a com-plex interactive dynamic sparked by adaptive chal-lenges. Individuals act as leaders in this dynamic

when they mobilize people to seize new opportu-nities and tackle tough problems. As the situationchanges, dierent people may act as leaders byleveraging their diering skills and experience.

An excellent starting place or develop-ing a model o adaptive leadership in events canbe ound in the work o Mead (1932, 1934, 1938),who brought to the ore the neglected dimensiono inter-subjectivity in the establishment o bothindividual and collective behavior. For Mead, thevery notion o sel (identity) becomes intimatelyconnected to the identity o agents (objects andindividuals) with which one interacts in a socialstructure. Allport (1954, 1962, 1967) builds onthis idea by conceptualizing social structure as anongoing cycle o events. Events are the observablenodes in these cycles; multiple cycles may interactdirectly or they may be tangential. Allports theoryprovides a powerul precedent to complexity sci-ence in afrming that longitudinal analyses ointeraction events should replace cross-sectional

rameworks that purport to examine how singlevariables cause some dependent (pre-assigned)outcome.

Weicks (1979) social psychology o orga-nizing modernizes Allports analysis. Weick arguesthat the basic unit o organization is the doubleinteract o interdependent behaviors between

individuals. He also emphasized that events inorganizations are held together and regulated bydense, circular, lengthy strands o causality per-ceived by members (Weick, 1979: 13).

Recently, Cilliers (1998) applied a com-plexity, postmodern lens by connecting these ear-lier ideas on intersubjectivity to Giddenss (1984)partly cognitive model o structuration. An event isthus a bracketing o ongoing interactions to createmeaning. Following this reasoning, we propose anew denition or an event, namely a perceived

segment o action or which meaning relates tointeractions among actors. All o the actors neednot play equivalent roles in the action, but all othe roles are interrelated. Another way to say thisis that meaning emerges in the spaces betweenpeople rather than in the acts o individualsper se(Buber, 1970). In essence [Bubers work] pointsto the relational perspective that sel and othersare not separable but are, rather, coevolving(Bradbury and Lichtenstein, 2000: 551). In a simi-lar way, Drath (2001: 136) proposed that:

people construct reality through their interactionswithin worldviews... [Tey do it] when they explainthings to one another, tell each other stories, createmodels and theories and in general when theyinteract through thought, word, and action.

Accordingly, leadership events are not constructedby the actions o single individuals; rather, theyemerge through the interactions between agentsover time.

Drivers of adaptive leadership

Collective identity formation as a driver of

adaptive leadership

According to most complexity researchers,agent interactions are governed by rulesand mechanisms or changing rules. One

undamental orm o rule change occurs wheninteractions in leadership events produce a newidentity (e.g., Gioia et al., 2000). According to the


7/14


adaptive leadership perspective, this identiy or-mation occurs over time, as participants togetherdene who we are and what we are doing throughour interactions. In this way, the emergence o asocial object occurs through the in-orming o ajoint social identity. Importantly, such social objectsarise jointly, through the mutual interactions o

its participant creators. Tis driver o collectiveidentity ormation can be orgotten as soon as theparticipants create a common-sense conception oa ormal leader out there, with themselves hold-ing complementary ollower roles (Kahneman andversky, 1972). By this account, complexity lead-ership theory suggests that participants need to bemade aware o this dual process o identity creationand projection, in order to take back ownership otheir role in the identity-ormation process.

Complexity leadership theorys conception

o interactive events oers the potential or speci-ying the construction process o collective action,and thus collective actors (Seers and Wilkerson,2005). Note how dierent this conception is romtraditional models o leadership, and rom mostcomplexity models o agent rule ollowing. Mostsimulation researchers suggest that agents are gov-erned by a selsh rule (Bonabeau and Meyer, 2001).For example, Nowak et al., (1995) show cellularautomata simulations in which selsh behaviors oagents may, under certain circumstances, generate

cooperative behaviors across an interactive system.In contrast, complexity leadership theory developsa more nuanced view o how rules are used and howthey can change through interactions over time.

Tension as a driver of adaptive leadership

A second driver o innovation in adaptive leader-ship events occurs when the interactions betweenagents spark tension that leads to adaptive change.According to complexity leadership theory, whenagents interact they may experience tension in theorm o pressures on and challenges to their per-sonal knowledge base (Carley and Hill, 2001). Suchchallenges to agent schema can, under the rightenabling conditions, oster realignment o agentscognitive maps to resonate better with the newinormation. Tat is, agents realign their schema inorder to accommodate and thus mitigate disagree-ment (Kauman, 1993; Marion and Uhl-Bien,2001).

Tese tension-related accommodationsofen generate completely new inormation; that

is, ideas, innovations, and rameworks emergethat are unanticipated given the inormation cur-rently available (Uhl-Bien et al., in press). Tereinlay the seeds o adaptive leadership: Agent inter-actions can generate tension through which novelinormation can emerge; when those new ideaslead to positive change, adaptive leadership has

occurred. In this case, the tension that arises inagent interactions can unction as a core driveror change in adaptive leadership. Adaptive lead-ership then may take advantage o such tension asa driver through which interacting agents (people,ideas, etc.) address complex challenges in ways thatproduce new patterns o cognition and behavior.But how do we measure these dynamics, and howcan we expand our understanding o leadership inevents such that ormal leaders can help create theconditions or adaptive leadership and complexity

leadership?

Measuring the space between: Methods for

exploring and analyzing leadership events

Given our interest in exploring the eventsthat generate leadership, we have identi-ed several methods that can be used to

measure and analyze specic leadership eventsover time, as well as the interrelationships thatenact them. Specically we are interested in epi-sodes o leadership, and on the interactions that

are bracketed into those events. Since interactivedynamics are processes that take place over time,we need methods that attend to the longitudinaland dynamic nature o interactive events and therelationships that construct them.

Focusing on events as the prime unit oanalysis means more than applying new methodsin order to analyze cross-sectional data on individ-ual characteristics. Instead, measuring the spacebetween involves:

Identiying and bracketing the events, episodes,and interactions o interest;

Capturing these events or interactions as datain a systematic way;

Gathering individual/agent level data thatdescribe interaction cues received over time;

Modeling these data in ways that highlighttheir longitudinal and relational qualities;

Analyzing these data in terms o their relational


8/14

E:CO Vol. 8 No. 4 2006 pp. 2-12

qualities and longitudinal dynamics.Identifying and bracketing events need not be com-plicated, depending on the nature o the organiz-ing processes one is examining. A paradigmaticcase is Barleys (1986) examination o interactionsbetween radiologists and technicians during aperiod o dramatic technological change. In that

case, the context o these interactions was dened(bracketed) by a radiological procedure, which inour case would be the event within its nexus o rela-tionships. Less common, but no less interesting, isthe research on organizational meetings or specialevents, in which the crucial episodes are deneda priori by the research interest, and the bracket-ing o these processes is structurally producedand distinguished by the organizational membersthemselves.

Capturing events and interactions system-

atically may result rom the in-depth explorationo organizing processes. For example, managementresearchers have recognized the important role thattemporal events play in making progress (Brownand Eisenhardt, 1997) and catalyzing changes(Gersick, 1994) in dynamic contexts. In those twostudies, the researchers were able to identiy tempo-ral and event-based transitions that structured thedevelopment o the project/venture being studied.A more ormal approach was taken by Lichtensteinet al. (2006) in their discovery o an emergence

event within a nascent entrepreneurial venture.Using grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1993),they coded bi-weekly interview data into our cat-egories, then transormed these codes into a quan-titative ormat (Van de Ven and Poole, 1990). Next,they analyzed each o the time series using qual-ity control methods, which highlighted a dramaticchange in one variable (Dooley and Van de Ven,1999). Post-hoc heuristic tests conrmed the pres-ence o two distinct epochs (events) within thesedata.Te interview corresponding to the specicchange point was more deeply examined; it becamethe nexus o a series o changes that were explainedas interdependent aspects o an emergence event.

Gathering individual/agent level data aboutthe members interdependencies and the interactioncues that they receive over time (traditionally, thecues that lead them) is necessary or exploringhow leadership events diuse through the spacebetween the participants to inuence a popula-tion. Tese data can be gathered through observa-

tion and surveys in the laboratory (Guastello et al.,2005) or in the eld (Schreiber and Carley, 2005).o ully understand leadership events, however,it is also necessary to know how these leadershipcues or triggers are perceived by the individualagents who must make particular choices or takespecic actions (Hazy, 2006). Because events

unold over time, the data set must be longitudinal,to capture how these qualities change over time, aswell as cross-sectional, to understand agents per-ceptions and qualities at specic moments in time.Accessing and gathering this type o data is challeng-ing; ortunately, sofware tools and other techniquesenable detailed data gathering at regular intervals inorganizations (www.leadershipscience.com; Amabileet al., 2005). Once gathered, the data can be used asinputs to computational models as described belowor or other quantitative, qualitative, or mixed

method analytic techniques. Modeling data in ways that highlight theirlongitudinal and relational qualities enables explo-ration o the complex and interrelated dynam-ics inherent in leadership events. A recent surveyo computer modeling approaches in leadershipresearch (Hazy, in press) identied several dier-ent techniques that have been used or this, includ-ing system dynamics modeling (Davis, 2005; Hazy,2004; Jacobsen and House, 2001), discrete eventsimulation (Jiang and Burton, 2002), agent-based

modeling (Black and Oliver, 2004; Blacket al., 2006;Carley and Ren, 2001), network modeling such asthe NK Model (Solow and Leenawong, 2003), anddynamical network analysis (Schreiber and Carley,2004a, 2005a). Tese techniques can be used toexplore the nonlinear relationships resident in thedata and to better understand the analytical impli-cations o theory. Based on these synthetic results,computational analysis can pose research questionsand identiy hypotheses or empirical studies thatmight have otherwise gone unnoticed.

In addition, computational modeling canbe used to answer questions that are normativeor plausible. Plausible questions ask what mightbe and explore or go beyond what has trans-pired (Burton, 2003). Computational models areparticularly useul in respect to research on orga-nizational complexity, as real-world complex adap-tive systems do not lend themselves to controlledexperimentation. Trough simulation, we canexplore the complex eects o explanatory vari-


9/14


ables in a systematic way. Analyzing data with a focus on theirdynamics and interdependence is also a critical ele-ment o research that explores a complexity scienceperspective on leadership. Nonlinear dynamicalrelationships inherent in the data create new chal-lenges in data analysis. In addition to the variables

that have been measured in traditional research,such as individual traits or behaviors, new met-rics must be identied that more ully capture thesystem dynamics. Tis is a work in progress andoers opportunities or methodological research.In addition, new analytical techniques must bedeveloped.

One such technique or rigorously under-standing these relational dynamics is dynamic net-work analysis. Te new dynamic network analysismethodology combines techniques o social net-

work analysis with multi-agent simulations (Carley,2003). Dynamic network analysis represents socio-technical systems in terms o the complex relationalqualities that characterize the interdependencies othe system (Krackhardt and Carley, 1998). Also,dynamic network analysis models dynamic changesresulting rom natural evolutionary processes suchas learning (Carley and Hill, 2001) and strategicintervention processes such as altering the set oindividuals within a group (Schreiber and Carley,2004b). Trough the use o dynamic network

analysis, the contextual nature o the network andemergent structure and behavior, including leader-ship events, can be analyzed as well as the eectso emergence on outcomes such as perormance,innovation, and adaptability.

In addition, nonsimulation methods arebeing perected or developing rigorous longitu-dinal analysis o critical events in emergence overtime. An exemplar is the study o events leading tothe emergence o the Branson, Missouri commu-nity (Chiles et al., 2004). Teir data analysis meth-ods (see pp. 504506) include grounded theory,pattern matching, visual mapping, narrative tech-niques, temporal bracketing, and quanticationusing an event count model analyzed through aPoisson regression. Tis approach resulted in theidentication o our specic eras o emergencepunctuated by a careully dened series o events;moreover, the researchers were able to generalizerom these events our drivers o organizationalemergence fuctuation dynamics, positive eed-

back dynamics, stabilization dynamics, and recom-bination dynamics which may be applicable aselements o adaptive leadership and complexityleadership.

Conclusions: Implications for organization

science

By looking or leadership as emerging endog-enously within interactions while beingembedded within organizations, so-called

leaders are not assumed to be directing collectiveaction. Tere is no linear cause-and-eect relation-ship to discover. Instead, leadership becomes aterm that is descriptive o certain social orces atplay among actors, which may include a ormalleader. Tis view is consistent with Giddenss (1984)duality o structure in that social structures produceand in some sense lead collective action, while at

the same time being reproduced by those actionsover time. By considering leadership action roman endogenous, time-dependent perspective, weare better able to integrate the time dimension osocial systems into organization theory, revealinga unique method or addressing Radclie-Browns(1952) challenge to sociological theory: How donew types o social structure come into existence?(cited in Burrell and Morgan, 1979: 56).

Complexity leadership theory begins toaddress this issue by arguing that certain inter-

actions in a social network will have a nonlinearinfuence on uture interactions within the net-work. As such, leadership actions may be seen aseld-level eects that potentially catalyze theemergence o new rms (Uhl-Bien et al., in press),proto-institutions (Maguire et al., 2004) or organi-zational elds (Chiles et al., 2004). Field is beingused here in a cognate sense to that ound in phys-ics; that is, a matrix underlying a social groupingwhose infuence reaches to all the actors withinthat eld.

Another application or complexity lead-ership theory ocuses on how leadership eventsmay occur within and/or give rise to emergentnodes in a social network. Such an approach pres-ents a unique addition to research on networks,by exploring how and when certain nodes may behighly leveraged within a collective social system.Moreover, by exploring infuential nodes in termso leadership outcomes rather than in terms othe individualized roles these nodes might repre-


10/14

E:CO Vol. 8 No. 4 2006 pp. 2-12

sent complexity leadership theory may oer anew way to explain the role o individual actionin the enactment o structures o constraint andopportunity (Ibarra et al., 2005: 359).

Complexity leadership theory also refectsa new approach to understanding dynamic organi-zational capabilities, including innovation, strategic

alliance making, and merger and acquisition capa-bilities (eece et al., 1997; Eisenhardt and Martin,2000). eece (2005) has argued that the next hori-zon o management research is how to manage andlead an organizations dynamic capabilities. In ourview, leadership is the emergent result o interactingindividuals such that behavior and resource ele-ments o the organization come together in useulways a rame that can be ormalized in terms odynamic organizational capabilities and routines.Such a link between leadership and organizational

capabilities has recently been explored throughcomputational modeling (Hazy, 2006).

Such raming refects the growing use ocomputational modeling in organization theory(Carley and Prietula, 1994; Carley and Svoboda,1996; Levinthal and Warglien, 1999; March, 1991;March and Olsen, 1976) and the use o comple-mentary modeling techniques in leadershipresearch (Hazy, 2006). O particular note is the useo Kaumanns (1993) NK model in organizationalcontexts (Levinthal, 2001; Levinthal and Warglien,

1999) to explore strategic choices and top manage-ment team dynamics. Although that approach hasbeen ocused around strategic search, innovation,and learning (e.g., Rivkin, 2000, 2001; Siggelkow,2001, 2002), Siggelkow and Rivkins (2005) approachcomes close to modeling the microdynamics oleadership.

Moreover, complexity leadership theoryaccepts the juxtaposition o order and apparent cha-otic change as an essential characteristic o social envi-ronments; in this way a complexity ramework orleadership is ully integrated within the social psychol-ogy o organizing (Weick, 1979; Weick et al., 2005).Similarly, by raming leadership as emergent and thusendogenous, it can be useully explored rom both theinterpretivist and the unctionalist traditions o orga-nizational analysis (Burrell and Morgan, 1979).

Complexity leadership theory also oersan important middle ground between computa-tional analyses o individual agents, and the struc-tures that emerge through their interactions. It

explores the actions and events that catalyze emer-gent structures, and by reducing dependence onthe individual the new theory expands our expla-nations about the origin and directionality o trans-ormative change.

Te practical and managerial implicationso complexity leadership theory are legion; we oer

here just a ew initial suggestions. By ocusing onhow leadership may occur in any interaction, thisnew perspective dramatically expands the poten-tial or creativity, infuence, and positive changein an organization. More than simplistic notionso empowerment, this approach encourages allmembers to be leaders to own their leader-ship within each interaction, potentially evokinga much broader array o responses rom everyonein an organization. Complexity leadership theoryprovides a clear and unambiguous pathway or

driving responsibility downward, sparking sel-organization and innovation, and making the rmmuch more responsive and adaptive at the bound-aries. In turn, signicant pressure is taken o or-mal leaders, allowing them to attend more directlyto identiying strategic opportunities, develop-ing unique alliances, and bridging gaps across theorganizational hierarchy.

Complexity leadership theory generatesnew managerial strategies, including the use otension to create adaptive change; that is, when

lower-level tensions are induced in the organiza-tion to produce adaptive change that addresses thecomplex challenges acing the organization (Uhl-Bien et al., in press). Goldstein (1994) rst showedhow internal tension, careully introduced, couldhelp spark transormative change; Uhl-Bien et al.(in press) convincingly argue that Jack Welch wasa consistent user o management by tension duringhis tenure at GE. Many more practical suggestionsmay be garnered through this approach.

Making interactions and relationships pri-mary creates a new avenue or improving ethicaland behavioral standards in an organization, or itis much easier to identiy a set o appropriate rulesor interactions between individuals than it is orsomeone (who?) to distinguish between appro-priate and inappropriate leadership behaviors.Complexity leadership theory also provides a path-way or respecting diversity, not only through itsormal emphasis on heterogeneity, but also becausecultural respect is much easier to cultivate through


11/14


one-on-one interactions than it is to consistentlyenact through one-to-many leadership exchanges.

In conclusion, Scotts (2004) reectionson the nature o emerging organizational trendsargue or increased attention to the relationshipsthrough which organizational activity is con-ducted. Whereas leadership research has been

ocused on durable, distinctive properties o enti-ties, a complexity-inspired model o leadership inevents presents an alternative conceptual rame-work, based in relationships, complex interactions,and inuences that occur in the space betweenindividuals. As such, it reects the complexity othe real world, increases the relevance o our leader-ship theories, and provides new insights or stu-dents, researchers, and managers in the complexworld o business.

ReferencesAllport, F.H. (1954). Te structuring o events: Outline

o a general theory with applications to psychology,Psychological Review, ISSN 0033295X, 61: 281303.

Allport, F.H. (1962). A structuronomic conception obehavior: Individual and collective,Journal of Abnor-mal and Social Psychology, ISSN 0096851X, 64: 330.

Allport, F.H. (1967). A theory o enestruence (event-structure theory): Report o progress, AmericanPsychologist, ISSN 0003066X, 22: 124.

Amabile, ., Barsade, S., Mueller, J., and B. Staw (2005).Aect and creativity at work,Administrative Science

Quarterly, ISSN 00018392, 50(3): 367403.Barley, S.R. (1986). echnology as an occasion or struc-turing: Evidence rom observations o C scanners andthe social order o radiology departments,Administra-tion Science Quarterly, ISSN 00018392, 31(1): 78109.

Black, J. A. and Oliver, R. (2004). Proactive versus passiveleader behavior and style inuences on the group levelcontext-or-learning, paper presented at the Proceed-ing or the Irish Academy o Management.

Black, J.A., Oliver, R.L., Howell, J.P., and King J.P. (2006).A dynamic system simulation o leader and group e-ects on context or learning, Te Leadership Quarterly,ISSN 10489843, 17(1): 39.

Bluedorn, A. (2002). Images o planning, perormance,and other theory, in F. Yammarino and F. Dansereau(eds)Multi-level Issues in Organizational Behavior andProcesses, Greenwich, C: JAI Press, ISBN 0762311061,6772.

Bonabeau, E. and Meyer, C. (2001). Swarm intelligence:A whole new way to think about business, HarvardBusiness Review, ISSN 00178012, 5: 107114.

Bradbury, H. and Lichtenstein, B. (2000). Relation-ality in organizational research: Exploring the space

between, Organization Science, ISSN 10477039, 11:551564.

Brown, S.L., and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1997). Te art ocontinuous change: Linking complexity theory andtime-paced evolution in relentlessly shiing orga-nizations, Administration Science Quarterly, ISSN00018392, 42(1): 134.

Brown, M.E. and Gioia, D.A. (2002). Making thingsclick: Distributive leadership in an online division oan ofine organization, Leadership Quarterly, ISSN10489843, 13(4): 397420.

Bryman, A. (1996). Leadership in organizations, inS.R. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. Nord (eds) Handbook ofOrganization Studies, London: Sage, ISBN 0585323321,pp. 276292.

Buber, M. (1970). I and Tou, New York: Scribners Sons,ISBN 0684717255.

Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigmsin Organizational Analysis, Aldershot: Ashgate, ISBN0566051486.

Burton, R. (2003). Computational laboratories ororganization science: Questions, validity and docking,Computational and Mathematical Organization Teory,ISSN1381298X, 9(2): 91108.

Carley, K.M. (2003). Dynamic network analysis, inP. Pattison (ed.) Dynamic Social Network Analysis:Workshop Summary and Papers, Washington D.C.:Te National Academies Press, ISBN 0309519160,133145.

Carley, K.M. and Hill, V. (2001). Structural change andlearning within organizations, in E.R. Larsen (ed.)Dynamics of Organizations: Computational Modeling

and Organization Teories, Menlo Park, CA: MIPress/AAAI, ISBN 0262621525, pp. 6392.

Carley, K.M. and Prietula, M.J. (eds) (1994), Computa-tional Organization Teory, Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, ISBN 080581406.

Carley, K.M. and Ren, Y. (2001). radeos between per-ormance and adaptability or C3I architectures, paperpresented at the Command and Control Research andechnology Symposium, Annapolis, MD.

Carley, K.M. and Svoboda, D.M. (1996) Modelingorganizational adaptation as a simulated annealingprocess, Sociological Methods and Research, ISSN00491241, 25(1): 138168.

Chiles, ., Meyer, A., and Hench, . (2004). Organiza-tional emergence: Te origin and transormation oBranson, Missouris musical theaters, OrganizationScience, ISSN 10477039, 15: 499520.

Cilliers, P. (1998).Complexity and Postmodernism: Under-standing Complex Systems, New York, NY: Routledge,ISBN 0415152879.

Davis, J.N. (2005). How is charisma routinized? A newlook at an old question, unpublished dissertation,Lubbock, X: exas ech University.


12/14

10 E:CO Vol. 8 No. 4 2006 pp. 2-12

Dooley, K.J. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1999). Explainingcomplex organizational dynamics, Organization Sci-ence, ISSN 10477039, 10(3): 358372.

Drath, W. (2001). Te Deep Blue Sea: Rethinking the Sourceof Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass & Center orCreative Leadership, ISBN 0787949329.

Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000). Dynamiccapabilities: What are they?, Strategic ManagementJournal, ISSN 01432095, 21: 11051121.

Finkelstein, S. (2002). Planning in organizations: Onevote or complexity, in F. Yammarino and F. Dansereua(eds.),Multi-level Issues in Organizational Behavior andProcesses, ISBN 0762311061, pp. 7380.

Gersick, C. (1994). Pacing strategic change: Te case oa new venture,Academy of Management Journal, ISSN00014273, 37(1): 945.

Giddens, A. (1984). Te Constitution of Society: Outlineof the Teory of Structuration, Berkeley, CA: Universityo Caliornia Press, ISBN: 0520052927.

Gioia, D., Schultz, M., and Corley, K. (2000). Orga-

nizational identity, image, and adaptive instability,Academy of Management Review, ISSN 03637425, 25:6381.

Goldstein, J. (1994). Te Unshackled Organization, Port-land, OR: Productivity Press, ISBN 156327048X.

Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit oanalysis, Leadership Quarterly, ISSN 10489843, 13:423451.

Guastello, S.J., Craven, J., Zygowicz, K.M., and Bock, B.R.(2005). A rugged landscape model or sel-organizationand emergent leadership in creative problem solvingand production groups, Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychol-

ogy and Life Sciences, ISSN 10900578, 9(3): 297233.Hazy, J.K. (2004). A leadership and capabilities rame-

work or organizational change: Simulating the emer-gence o leadership as an organizational meta-capabil-ity, unpublished dissertation, Washington, D.C.: TeGeorge Washington University.

Hazy, J.K. (2006). Measuring leadership efectivenessin complex socio-technical systems, Emergence:Complexity and Organization, ISSN 15213250, 8(3):58-77.

Hazy, J.K. (in press). Computer models o leadership:Foundation or a new discipline or meaningless diver-sion? Te Leadership Quarterly, ISSN 10489843.

Heckscher, C. (1994). Dening the post-bureaucratictype, in A. Donnellon and C. Heckscher (eds) TePost-Bureaucratic Organization: New Perspectives onOrganizational Change, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 14ISBN 0803957173, pp. 1463.

Ibarra, H., Kilduf, M., and sai, W. (2005). Zoomingin and out: Connecting individuals and collectivitiesat the rontiers o organizational network research,Organization Science, ISSN 10477039, 16: 359371.

Jacobsen, C. and House, R.J. (2001). Dynamics o charismatic

leadership: A process theory, simulation model, and tests,Te Leadership Quarterly, ISSN 10489843, 12(1): 75112.

Jiang, L. and Burton, R. (2002). Internal t between teamstructure, communication methods and leaders exper-tise, paper presented at the Computational Analysiso Social and Organizational Systems 2002, CarnegieMellon University.

Kahneman, D. and versky, A. (1972). Subjective prob-ability: A judgment o representativeness, CognitivePsychology, ISSN 00100285, 3: 430454.

Kaufman, S. (1993). Te Origins of Order: Self-Organi-zation and Selection in Evolution, New York: OxordUniversity Press, ISBN: 0195058119.

Krackhardt, D. and Carley, K.M. (1998). A PCANS modelo structure in organization, paper presented at theInternational Symposium on Command and ControlResearch and echnology, Monterrey, CA.

Levinthal, D.A. (2001). Organizational adaptation and en-vironmental selection: Interrelated processes o change,Organization Science, ISSN 10477039, 2: 140-144.

Levinthal, D.A. and Warglien, M. (1999). Landscapedesign: Designing or local action in complex worlds,Organization Science, ISSN 10477039, 10(3): 342357.

Lichtenstein, B., Dooley, K., and Lumpkin, G.. (2006).Measuring emergence in the dynamics o new venturecreation,Journal of Business Venturing, ISSN 08839026,21: 153-175.

Linsky, M. and Heietz, R.A. (2002). Leadership on theLine: Staying Alive through the Dangers of Leading,Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press, ISBN1578514371.

Maguire, S., Hardy, C., and Lawrence, . (2004). Institu-

tional entrepreneurship in emerging elds: HIV/AIDStreatment advocacy in Canada,Academy of Manage-ment Journal, ISSN 00014273, 47(5): 657-679.

March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation inorganizational learning, Organization Science, ISSN10477039, 2(1): 7187.

March, J.G., and Olsen, J.P. (1976).Ambiguity and Choicein Organizations, Bergen, Norway: Universitetsorlaget,ISBN 8200014789.

Marion, R. (1999). Te Edge of Organization: Chaos andComplexity Teories of Formal Social Organization,Newbury Park, CA: Sage, ISBN 0761912657.

Marion, R. and Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership incomplex organizations, Leadership Quarterly, ISSN10489843, 12: 389418.

Marion, R. and Uhl-Bien, M. (2003). Complexity theoryand Al-Qaeda: Examining complex leadership, Emer-gence: Complexity Issues in Organizations and Manage-ment, ISSN 15213250, 5: 5678.

Mead, G.H. (1932). he Philosophy of the Present,Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company, LCCN3219616.

Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society, Chicago:


13/14

11Lichtenstein, Uhl-Bien, Marion, Seers, Orton, & Schreiber

University o Chicago Press, ISBN 0226516679.Mead, G.H. (1938). Te Philosophy o the Act, Chicago:

University o Chicago Press, ISBN 0226516660.Meindl, J.R., Ehrlich, S.B. and Dukerich, J.M. (1985).

Te romance o leadership, Administrative ScienceQuarterly, ISSN 00018392, 30(1): 78.

Meyer, A., Gaba, V., and Colwell, K. (2005). Organizingar rom equilibrium: Nonlinear change in organiza-tional elds, Organization Science, ISSN 10477039,16: 456473.

Nowak, M.A., May, R.M., and Sigmund, K. (1995). Tearithmetics o mutual help, Scientifc American, ISSN00368733, 272(6): 76-81.

Osborn, R.N., Hunt, J.G., and Jauch, L.R. (2002). owarda contextual theory o leadership, Leadership Quar-terly, ISSN 1048-9843, 13: 797837.

Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (2003). Shared Leadership:Reraming the Hows and Whys o Leadership, TousandOaks: Sage, ISBN 0761926232.

Radclie-Brown, A. (1952). Structure and Function in

Primitive Society, London: Cohen and West, LCCN:543649.

Rivkin, J.W. (2000). Imitation o complex strategies,Management Science, ISSN 00251909, 46: 824-844.

Rivkin, J.W. (2001). Reproducing knowledge: Replicationwithout imitation at moderate complexity, Organiza-tion Science, ISSN 10477039, 12(3): 274293.

Schreiber, C. and Carley, K.M. (2004a). Going beyond thedata: Empirical validation leading to grounded theory,computational and mathematical organization theory,ISSN 1381298X, 10(2): 155164.

Schreiber, C. and Carley, K.M. (2004b). Key personnel:

Identication and assessment o turnover risk, paperpresented at the NAACSOS Conerence Proceedings,Pittsburgh, PA.

Schreiber, C. and Carley, K.M. (2005). Ineective organi-zational practices at NASA: A dynamic network analy-sis, Carnegie Mellon University, School o ComputerScience, Institute or Sofware Research, International,echnical Report, CMU-ISRI-05-135.

Scott, W.R. (2004). Reections on a hal-century oorganizational sociology,Annual Review o Sociology,ISSN 03600572, 30: 121.

Seers, A. (2004). Leadership and exible organizationalstructures, in G. B. Graen (ed.), New rontiers o lead-ership, LMX Leadership: Te Series, Greenwich, C:Inormation Age Publishing, ISBN 1593112394, 2,131.

Seers, A. and Wilkerson, J.W. (2005). oward a model orelational micro-organizing: Social exchange, identity,and structure, unpublished paper.

Siggelkow, N. (2001). Change in the presence o t: Terise, the all, and the renascence o Liz Claiborne,Academy o Management Journal, ISSN 00014273, 44:838857.

Siggelkow, N. (2002). Evolution toward t, Admin-istrative Science Quarterly, ISSN 00018392, 47(1):125159.

Siggelkow, N. and Rivkin, J.W. (2005). Speed andsearch: Designing organizations or turbulence andcomplexity, Organization Science, ISSN 10477039,16(2): 101122.

Solow, D. and Leenawong, C. (2003). Mathematical mod-els or studying the value o cooperational leadership inteam replacement, Computational and MathematicalOrganization Teory, ISSN 1381298X, 9(1): 6181.

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1993). Basics o Qualitative Re-search, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, ISBN 0803959400.

eece, D. (2005). Dynamic capabilities: he causes,consequences and challenges o change, in J. Hazy(ed.), Comment at a Symposium at the Academy oManagement Annual Conerence, uesday, August 8,2005, Honolulu, HI.

eece, D.J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamiccapabilities and strategic management, Strategic Man-

agement Journal, ISSN 01432095, 18(7): 509533.Uhl-Bien, M. (in press). Relational leadership theory:

Exploring the social processes o leadership andorganizing, Te 2006 Yearly Review o Te LeadershipQuarterly, ISSN 10489843.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., and McKelvey, B. (in press).Complexity leadership theory: Shifing leadershiprom the industrial age to the knowledge era, TeLeadership Quarterly, ISSN .

Van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S. (1990). Methods orstudying innovation development in the MinnesotaInnovation Research Program, Organization Science,

ISSN 10477039, 1(3): 313335.Weick, K.E. (1979). Te Social Psychology o Organizing,

Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, ISBN 0201085917.Weick, K.E. and Roberts, K.H. (1993). Collective mind

in organizations: Heedul interrelating on ight decks,Administrative Science Quarterly, ISSN 00018392,38(3): 357381.

Weick, K.E., Sutclie, K. and Obsteld, D. (2005). Orga-nizing and the process o sensemaking, OrganizationScience, ISSN 10477039, 16: 409-421.

Benyamin B. Lichtenstein, Ph.D. (Boston College,

1998) is Assistant Proessor o Management andEntrepreneurship at the University o Massachusetts,Boston. He has helped grow entrepreneurshipprograms at the University o Hartord, SyracuseUniversity, and most recently at U-Mass Boston.Dr. Lichtensteins research expertise ocuses onapplications o complexity science to leadership,entrepreneurial emergence and transormation,and collaboration, trust, and inter-organizationallearning. Proessor Benyamin, as his students


14/14

1 E CO V l 8 N 4 2006 2 12

call him, has published over 40 papers and chap-ters and presented several dozen more, includ-ing articles in internationally recognized journalssuch as Organization Science, Journal of BusinessVenturing, Entrepreneurship Teory and Practice,Human Relations, and theAcademy of ManagementExecutive, where he received the Article o the

Year award in 2000. He regularly provides con-sulting support or entrepreneurial rms and largecompanies. In addition to his proessional work, hends his greatest joy these days connecting with hisbeautiul wie Sasha and their two young children,Simeon and Moriah.

Mary Uhl-Bien, Ph.D. (University o Cincinnati,1991) is the Howard Hawks Chair in BusinessEthics and Leadership and the Associate Directoro the Gallup Leadership Institute at the University

o Nebraska-Lincoln. She has published articleson leadership (e.g., relational leadership theory,leadermember exchange, social exchange, andcomplexity leadership) in leading national andinternational journals, including Academy ofManagement Journal,Journal of Applied Psychology,Journal of Management, Human Relations, andTe Leadership Quarterly. She is Senior Editoro the Leadership Horizons Series published byInormation Age Publishing, and serves on the edi-torial boards oTe Leadership Quarterlyand the

Academy of Management Journal. She has consultedwith organizations including State Farm Insurance,Walt Disney World, the U.S. Fish & Wildlie Service,British Petroleum, and the General AccountingOfce.

Russ Marion (Clemson University) is author oTe Edge of Organization (1999), Leadership inEducation (2001), and Leadership in ComplexOrganizations (Te Leadership Quarterly).Marion is currently co-editor o a special editionon Complexity Leadership or Te LeadershipQuarterly, and is co-editor o a volume oLeadershipHorizons: Te Series. He co-organized workshopson complexity leadership at the Center or CreativeLeadership and at George Washington University.Marion has presented on complexity leadership atthe India Institute o echnology, the Institute orManagement Development in Switzerland, and inworkshops on destructing complex movements atthe US Department o Deense.

Anson Seers is currently a Proessor o Managementat Virginia Commonwealth University School oBusiness, and holds a Ph.D. degree in businessadministration rom the University o Cincinnati.His research publications have ocused on workroles and working relationships, encompassing top-ics such as leadermember exchange relationships,

teammember exchange relationships, emergentleadership, role conict and role ambiguity, teamand organizational commitment, work team eec-tiveness, and task orce pacing. Dr. Seers is a Fellowand Past President o the Southern ManagementAssociation.

James Douglas Orton (Ph.D., University oMichigan) is an expert on strategy-losing andstrategy-remaking processes in the U.S. nationalsecurity community and other loosely coupled

networks. Dr. Orton is a senior aculty memberat the George Washington Universitys ExecutiveLeadership Doctoral Program. He teaches doc-toral seminars on strategy, leadership, organizationtheory, loosely coupled systems, sensemaking pro-cesses, high-reliability organizations, and the crao organizational scholarship.

Craig Schreiber recently earned his Ph.D. inComputation, Organizations and Society romCarnegie Mellon University. He was a member o

the Center or Computational Analysis o Social andOrganizational Systems (CASOS) at the Instituteor Soware Research International in the School oComputer Science. He is currently a research asso-ciate or the National Research Council. Previouslyhe has worked on research projects sponsored bythe National Science Foundation, NASA, the Ofceo Naval Research and Army Research Labs. Hisinterests include strategic management, organiza-tion and management theory, leadership, inuenceand power, organizational structure, organizationalperormance, organizational risk, organizationallearning, knowledge management, inormationtechnology, computational organization science,social network analysis, dynamic network analysis,and model validation.

cas interactive perspective

Documents