G-SEC WORKING PAPER No.3
Starting “Leadership R&D” Activities— Field Origination in the Complex System View —Haruo Takagi 1 , Yuki Watanabe 2
and Yoichiro Yagi 3
September, 2005

Abstract
For the science of leadership to be practical in the true sense, it must be able to explain therelative merits of a leader’s actions, and also be able to design methods on how best to foster
leaders as human beings, and how leaders can motivate the group or organization. It is when theoutcomes of leadership research activities (R) can be applied to leadership development activities(D) that the science of leadership indeed becomes practical. Moreover, the essence of theleadership structure is the individual to the group/organization, and their interrelationship forms acomplex system. Leadership R&D activities must maintain this view.

1

Senior Research Fellow, Global Security Research Institute, Professor,Graduate School ofBusiness, Keio University
2
Co-Active Coach / Consultant
3
Doctoral Candidate, Graduate School of Business Administration, Research Assistant, Global
Security Research Institute11.

Introduction“Leadership R&D” is a combination of two distinct terms — leadership is a business-related

word that has its basis in the study of humanities, while R&D is a technical term centered intechnologies and engineering. It was coined by the authors in search of a phrase that could express thefusion of humanities and technologies/engineering.
Under this title, this paper will highlight the importance of truly practical leadership science,and point out the processes leading to its origination. It is when the outcomes of leadership research
activities (R) can be applied to leadership development activities (D) that the science of leadershipindeed becomes practical. The aim of this paper is to undertake R&D on leadership, and put forward
this concept.

2.

Global view of leadership R&D

Leadership science based on the fusion of humanities andtechnologies/engineering
The need for the leadership R&D term stems from the following observations the authors havemade over the many years spent on leadership-related research. While we can pursue science aimed at
gaining a detailed understanding of leadership, it tends not to pass on the steps for effectively
executing that leadership. Regardless of how much scholars refine their knowledge of leadership andcommunicate this to business leaders, they find it difficult to link this knowledge to concrete methodsof action to motivate their groups or organizations. There is a difference between theoreticalknowledge and the ability to execute. Science that provides a detailed understanding alone cannot fillin this gap.
For the science of leadership to be practical in the true sense, simply explaining why a leader
acts in certain ways is not enough. What is also critical is that leaders must be able to design methods
that can best motivate the group/organization. To this end, it is necessary not just to grasp leadership asa humanities science relating to humans, but also to apply technologies and engineering that conducts
R&D to obtain methods of leadership execution. This is why a term that brings together humanities
and technologies/engineering was essential.

2

A precedent for a new science with terminology combining humanities andtechnologies/engineering is “financial engineering.” Finance is a humanities term based in economics,
and incorporated with this is the technological term engineering.
Financial engineering is a practical branch of learning aimed at the efficient use of capital, andan interdisciplinary science that extends across many academic fields including economics,
accounting, insurance, finance, law, statistics, probability, mathematics, and computer science(Nishina, Kotani, Nagai, 2003). It was developed in the United States in the mid 1970s, and has givenrise to many concepts and techniques actually used in management such as portfolio theory and real
options. It was developed as a practical science, i.e., for the efficient use of capital, in response to thequestion of “how”.
Unlike disciplines in which specialist fields are researched and broken down in detail, financial
engineering utilizes the research outcomes from many of these specialist fields to achieve practicaland social objectives. It goes beyond the search of knowledge as to “why something is the way it is”.
Practical leadership science in the true sense should be like this.

Looking back on conventional leadership research
Before moving on to discussions with the purpose, we will look back on conventional
leadership research from the perspective of research methods and philosophy.
Leadership research to date has placed greatest emphasis on questionnaire surveys and theirstatistical analysis. To this, Yukl (2002) pointed out the limitations of these surveys. In short, thesequestionnaire surveys were limited structurally in that they requested from respondents theirrecollections and interpretation of events or actions that occurred.
Many questionnaires ask leaders or those concerned whether and how often specific events or
actions occurred during a given period. But there is no guarantee that they will always be conscious ofand accurately remember the specific event or action, and often the response has to rely on an
uncertain recollection. Moreover, ambiguity in the questions may also give rise to differences ininterpretation among those taking part. A respondent’s feelings toward a certain leader (e.g. like or
dislike) may also color the respondent’s answers to the questions.
Statistical analysis also has its own limitations. Pinpointing a causal relationship is difficult
with this method. Virtually all cases of statistical analysis work out a correlation coefficient, but with3

this there is no way to tell which is the cause and which is the effect. Regardless of how many variables
are incorporated into the survey, the presence of a hidden variable is always a risk, possibly creating
the appearance of a causal relationship that in effect may not exist.
Why have we persisted in conducting leadership research using only these methods with all
their inherent limitations? There are a number of reasons. One of the main reasons is the constraint
caused by the framework of how the researcher wants to understand reality. The understanding is inline with the framework, so the framework constrains the choice of research methods. This is implicit.
This framework of understanding is a paradigm of modern scientific philosophy of a mechanicalglobal view. Researchers have received their training to become researchers within this framework, sothey have been implicitly restricting themselves.
The mechanical global view is also synonymous with the term reductionism. This is theconcept of separating the subject into detailed elements, studying each element in depth, thenassembling the obtained knowledge to gain an even better understanding of the subject. This is thesame as the idea that machines are formed from component parts. If the parts are assembled, they will
form a machine. This concept is why it is called mechanistic theory. This view is a paradigm
developed based on the laws of the physical world to accurately predict changes there.
How, then, does research into leadership fit into this global view? For example, the following
theory that has been researched quite extensively — the two-factor theory of whether a leader istask-oriented or relations-oriented — gives an ample indication of such a mechanical global view.
This research breaks down leadership into two factors, then based on a detailed and integrated study ofthese factors, establishes the concept of leadership. One person may have a high rating for task
orientation and a low rating for relations orientation (high-low), while another person may be rated the
opposite — low task and high relations orientation (low-high). Yet another person may have a highrating for both (high-high). In this way, the leadership of each individual is analyzed in an effort tohelp predict leaders’ work performance.
To actual leaders, though, this theory tends not to be particularly useful. This is because leadersdeal with groups of people, not machines. Even though a leader may be judged through a questionnaire
to fall under a specific type of leadership, e.g. “low-high”, it would be inconceivable that the leader
would always under all circumstances be that type of leader. With a different group/organization tolead, non-type actions will invariably appear according to the group/organization. This is a limitationof the of type classification leadership research through combining factors, and tends not to act as an4

engine for motivating and bringing about change in an organization formed from a broad range of
people. Applying the mechanical global view to material research allows a high capacity for prediction,
but the opposite is the case when it is applied to human society.

Sub-optimization leading to total optimization
These days, the authors often relate the following in classes at the Business School. Any major
work is always divided and shared. The work is divided into parts along some form of axis, andindividuals are responsible for each of those parts. The axis of work division may be function, product,or region. The problem is that even though individual parts may be achieved, this does not mean thatthe original major work is achieved. Even though all parts may be then brought together, it tends not toreadily form the total.
This not only tells of the form of work division and integration in the organization, but also theessential issue of leadership. What kind of relationship should exist between leadership toward
individual members of the organization and leadership toward the organization as a whole? Even if
individuals perform their responsible tasks satisfactorily, this only realizes sub-optimization; total
optimization for the organization cannot be achieved. This must be considered to be an issue ofleadership.
The question of part and whole can be said to be a major problem lying dormant in today’s
business organizations. This situation is fiercely demands experts or professionals. Specialist graduate
schools expected to educate these people were already established in response to such a leaning
toward professionals, and have been increasing and expanding over the past few years. However,fostering these professionals does not necessarily foster leaders who can aim at total optimization.
Even if experts alone carry out the work, this does not automatically generate total optimization. As an
aside, although those traditionally referred to as generalists who are highly competent at coordination
and are suitable to serve in managerial positions, it goes without saying that they are not the leaderssought in this paper.
We will also touch on the following even though it may digress slightly. It is often said that
doctors these days may be able to cure diseases, but they are not able to cure patients. This, of course,
relates to Western medicine. In traditional Chinese medicine, though, it is said that when treating
patients, doctors will treat the “person” without looking only at the “disease”.

5High-level specialization in medical care has given rise to narrowly segmented and specialized
medical technology, and has contributed to curing difficult diseases. On the other hand, though,lifestyle-related diseases and dementia are quite common these days. They are complex diseases
closely connected with society and lifestyle, and the adverse effects of medical care tend to manifest
through segmentalization and specialization. For this reason, even though, say, treatment may only bepartial, as long as it is provided in part with an eye to the whole, and not in part because of functional
segmentalization, a method of treatment that leads to the recovery of the health of the patient should be
able to be devised. Traditional medicine is one form of medical care that has its roots in such an idea.
The macrobiotics dietary method based on the concept of an inherent association between dietand health is similar to this. This dietary method is founded on the base that the nutrients necessary tosustain oneself are determined by the climate and geological conditions of the region in which one
resides, the activity level, and physiological conditions. It aims at regaining intrinsic natural balance
between the overall human mind and body through the preparation and consumption of food such as
brown rice, vegetables, seaweed, beans and traditional seasoning in a form appropriate to theparticular food.
Humans have no direct control of the individual body parts, but they can act on not just thefunctional condition of individual internal organs but the body as a whole by understanding theirenvironment and the food they eat on a daily basis with the various constraints of heredity and culture.
In short, this is one method in which manipulating part will lead to the manipulation of thewhole. Such a process must also be possible in leadership as well. Formation of sub-optimization
naturally must be linked to the realization of total optimization.

The organization cannot be steered from the cockpit
Although not entirely correct, let us liken the inflected form of the leadership science theauthors are seeking to establish to a cockpit. The pilot of a large jet aircraft operates many levers in the
cockpit. The operation of these levers gives the aircraft’s huge body the necessary movement to takeoff from the runway, maintain stable flight in changes of weather, and land.
Here we likened a leader operating an organization to a pilot in the cockpit, but of course this is
not correct. In the case of the aircraft, operating the levers is acting on mechanical parts, and the body
is nothing more than an assembling of parts.

6

An organization is a collective whole that is a society of people. If the leader carries out someform of action on those people, they will comprehend and act as autonomous human beings. They are
not mechanical parts, so even though they may be operated by the pilot’s lever, they act having
incorporated their own thoughts and ideas to it.
Nonetheless, the leader wants to operate the organization from the cockpit. That feeling is easy
to understand, but the leadership science aimed at in this paper is not about sitting in the cockpit of a jet
aircraft as the organization is not a collection of mechanical parts. It must be a science that enables the
traditional medicine or macrobiotic cockpit operation of a group of subjective people.
Moreover, that is “second-person” science. The essential characteristic of a leadershipsituation is the relationship between oneself and others; i.e. between the “individual” and the“group/organization”. Both are human beings, and the realization and actions undertaken by the leader
within the interrelationship of oneself and others is leadership.
Pursuing “third-person” science will not give rise to a practical meaning. The significance of
research by scientists into the condition of the “individual” to the “group/organization” through thethird person is an increase in the knowledge on the part of scientists — the “third-person”. Objective,
i.e. third-person, leadership understanding will be formed as a scientific outcome. In most cases,
though, it is of no use in designing usable methods for leaders who are working in the second person.
“Second-person” science is useful for determining what the leader (oneself) needs to do to
motivate the organization (others). This science is not “cognizing science” aimed at deepening theunderstanding of things, but “designing science” aimed at building up methods (Science Council ofJapan, 2003).

Pursuing leadership science in the second person
What kind of humanities and technologies/engineering studies should be gathered together to
conduct leadership science in the second person? The following are the authors’ thoughts. We cangather and incorporate studies researching the essence of human autonomy, the essence of therelationship between humans, i.e. between autonomous beings, and the essence of collections ofhumans, i.e. collections of autonomous beings.
Though, it is not simple. The accumulation of studies on human beings is indeed vast. To
assemble the essential items from among this requires some form of framework. Naturally, the basis of7the framework is that “humans are autonomous beings”. That is, think for oneself, act on the basis ofthat thinking, or change that thinking as necessary. Another fundamental is that “humans interact” —interact subjectively as autonomous beings.
This framework presents a different perspective from the previously mentioned mechanicalglobal view or reductionism. Looking at the history of the development of science, applying thisframework forces a shift in thinking regarding cause and effect, that is, the principle of causality.
The pilot sitting in the cockpit only experiences a linear causality principle in that operating thelever will alter the movement of the aircraft. The order of cause and effect only flows from operating
the lever to moving the aircraft. On the other hand, when a leader — a human — applies a certain
operation to the organization — a group of humans — the group comprehends and acts as anautonomous body. The leader took the action in anticipation of this to a degree, but an unforeseen
reaction occurred in the organization, so the leader devised a further leadership action. But theorganization …. A continuation of this act is the principle of causality in which the cause and effectrecurs.
Pursuing the science of leadership in the second person begins from a recognition of theinteraction among humans. It is not an interaction among machines. Rather, it is an interaction among
human beings with subjectivity and emotions; interaction among humans as autonomous entities.
There is a need to shift from the paradigm of the linear causality principle to the paradigm of thecyclical causality principle.

Cyclical causality principle and complex systems
Essentially, the actions of the leader and those of the members form a relationship in which
both sets of actions can act as cause and effect on each other. Very rarely is the cause and effectrelationship unidirectional in communities comprising multiple humans. In most cases, we can readily
see the phenomenon of a cyclical causal relationship with the actions of the leader and members. In
short, before the leader acts, the leader anticipates the subsequent action of the others, and seeks tofactor that into the initial action.
While studying causal relationship from the perspective of the cyclical causality principle
regarding leadership and other social phenomena is extremely critical, it is only fairly recently that thisresearch has actually been carried out. This is due in part to the following issues with research

8techniques. Until recently, there had not been an adequate method of obtaining a solution to nonlinear
differential equation essential for analyzing the cyclical causality principle, nor had sufficient progress
been made in the computer technology needed for this (Simon, 1996). Finally, a series of studies using
complex systems terminology was actively initiated in the perspective of the cyclical causality
principle from the latter half of the 20th century.
Here we will briefly touch on complex systems. Similar to terms such as reductionism andmechanical global view, the term complex systems provides one way of looking at the world. So in
itself, it does not point to a specific theory or principle.
A system is a collection of a number of interacting elements. Researchers came across systems
in which there is no simple linear relationship (i.e. unidirectional relationship from cause to effect)
among the elements, and were interested in the fact that the movement of the system is extremelycomplex. The system with a bidirectional effect among elements and showing complex behavior
overall was termed a complex system.
In fact, interest in this research has been around for a surprisingly long time. It is said that it
originated from Newton’s discovery of universal gravity pointed out in Principia (original, 1687). At
the end of the 1800s the mathematician Henri Poincare tackled the three-body problem of what kind of
movements are shown if three point masses pull on each other through universal gravity. While
research into this problem continues today, Poincare showed that the orbit of the differential equation
becomes extremely complex if it attempts to solve this problem. This phenomenon is called chaos, andit came to indicate a system in which a slight change in the initial value will at once alter the orbit.
Although deterministic, this system is characterized by the fact that a complete prediction is
impossible because a slight initial change can vary the outcome significantly.
With the progress of computer technology from the latter half of the 20th century and its
effective use as a research tool, researchers in various fields have detected chaotic behavior behind
many phenomena. Research results by meteorologist Edward Lorenz published in 1964 are stillwidely cited today. He explained that the weather is a phenomenon caused by chaotic changes in air
currents, and the mere flapping of the wings of a single butterfly on the Equator has the potential tocause a typhoon. The slight initial change to the atmosphere by the flapping of the butterfly’s wings
can develop into a major typhoon.
The increase of such research results has created a research field known as complex systemscience. The global view is not reductionism, but that the character of the whole is not uniformly

9determined by the combination of the elements. The reason it is not uniformly determined is that itrecognizes “emergence” that cannot be argued through the mechanical linear causality principle.
Langton (1989), a proponent of artificial life, explains emergence as follows. Many elements acting
autonomously generate macro-order through micro-interaction. The order thus generated, though,constrains the behavior of the elements. New functions, character, and actions are formed in thesystem through the bidirectional dynamic process from micro to macro and vice versa. This is“emergence”. In such a system, the causality principle is always cyclical.
Research into complex systems these days is extensive and advancing rapidly. It would not bewrong to say that this expansion arises from the limitations on research methods that take a mechanicalview of the subject of the research and seek to reduce it to its elements. Kaneko (2001), who isresearching biophysics from a complex systems viewpoint, states the following.
I have certain misgivings with molecular biology. Molecular biology seeks thecause molecule by tracing back through the chain of cause and effect regarding acertain life phenomenon. Then, searching for the gene that manifests in responseto this, it views life as a combination of such “logical expressions”. … (omitted)… Why do I feel such misgivings about this standpoint? First, many biologists
come across unexpected behavior shown by a life system even under controlled
conditions. They are realizing various unstable factors causing a deviation frommechanical behavior. The role of the molecule (gene) is often diverse, and aone-on-one cause and effect cannot be found, or the role itself changes according
to the situation. … (omitted) … It would appear that the life system is stable basedon a good relationship between the whole and the elements (p.v.).
The authors share similar misgivings about conventional leadership research. Though we
endeavor to describe the relationship between cause and effect through “logical expressions” by
cutting off sections of the area in which the leader operates, there are just too many reality situations
that do not fit. Moreover, missing from within the “logical expressions” in the linear causality
principle is emergence, i.e. the dynamism generated from the interaction among humans. How does
the leader view, consider, and act in relation to the group/organization. At the same time, thegroup/organization also views, considers and acts in relation to the leader. For this reason, leadershipscience must be set up in the second person, and this requires a paradigm shift to the cyclical causality
principle.

10

Use of the agent-based approach
A paradigm shift to the cyclical causality principle was accelerated by the scientific theory“agent-based approach” put forward in the latter half of the 1990s (Axelrod, 1997; Axelrod and Cohen,
1999). Agents are autonomous entities. Scientists who take up this theory press the importance oflooking into the autonomous entities and their interaction when applying science togroup/organization and social actions. The first author is also a member of this group of scientists(Takagi et al., 1995).
The agent-based approach seeks to determine what kind of actions an agent will take inresponse to the actions of another agent, and what kind of actions this will lead the interacting agents
to take as a whole. That is, the agents recognize their position within their environment, consider theaction formula, carry out their actions, then after obtaining a feedback from their environment, alter
their recognition and undertake new actions. Agents do not exist in a void; rather they share theenvironment with many other agents. The agents’ environmental recognition is a recognition of theirrelationship with other agents, and the agents’ actions are an interaction with other agents. This itself isthe cyclical causality principle. Agents can be humans or animals, or robots that move by
self-correcting software so they can perform as described above.

3.

What needs to be done in the leadership “R”
The essence of the leadership structure is the individual to the group/organization. The newscience of leadership pursued by this paper must be able to give the leader an understanding about theindividual and the group/organization, and facilitate the design of methods to lead them. At the sametime, it must also be tied in with trust in the leader and the leader’s growth and development as ahuman being. Because of this, leadership “R” (research activities) and “D” (development activities)
must be closely linked in respect to “human beings”.
Although the term “leadership engineering” can be similarly coined, it does not, however, fit
the authors’ intention if it points only to the technical pursuit of leadership. Engineering aims at
technical refinement in the manipulation of the target object. Financial engineering, which wasraised earlier in this paper, has funds as the target object, and aims at technical refinement in how

11those funds are invested. If we apply this to leadership, it leans toward refining the skill to motivate
the target object, namely people, and will enable the formation of highly accurate mind manipulation
techniques.
However, leadership purely as a method is in itself not something we should do as humans.
The case of people engineering with people as the target object contains much more meaning thanwhen people engineer an inanimate object as the target. If “leadership engineering” is conductedbased on the outcomes of leadership “R” activities and from this the techniques for motivating thegroup/organization could be formed, the leader who employs those techniques must gain trust andgrow and develop as a human being. This is what is aimed at in leadership “D” activities.

Human autonomy is contained in the “brain”
This paper so far has laid all the necessary foundations. Utilizing these, we will examine
theories that are useful in leadership “R” activities. What is necessary first of all is a theory forunderstanding the essence of human autonomy. Next we will look at understanding regarding thegroup/organization. These theories should indicate the process for establishing new leadershipscience.
We have already talked about macrobiotics and cockpits, so readers should by now be used
to our at times somewhat erratic commentary. So next we will talk about brains. To understandhuman autonomy, we must first understand the brain. Human autonomy manifests as an action of thebrain.
The brain is a collection of nerve cells. But even if we take out a single nerve cell, it cannot
tell us about the function of the brain. Although analyzing a single nerve cell will show the protein
structure of the cell, it does not reveal to us how the nerve cell works. This is because nerve cells arefunctioning through the constant exchange of information with countless other nerve cells. We canunderstand what the nerves are doing in a certain region of the brain by looking at it as an
information processing network based on the interaction among nerve cells. What is taking place inthat region is more than the workings of a single nerve cell. Note that this explanation covers the“relationship between parts and the whole” mentioned earlier.
The brain is also an interaction of many functional regions. It can be classified into the
cerebrum and cerebellum, and we also know that the brain has an association area and a language area.

12

The hippocampus is responsible for memory, and the cerebellum is responsible for whole bodysensory information. The key point is that when we look at the overall brain, we can see that eachfunctional region acts closely in concert with other functional regions; it is not a segmented linkage inwhich a specific part performs only a specific function. There is no clear segmentation of functions,rather the whole is formed through a loose interaction and sharing of roles. This is also a relationshipbetween parts and the whole.

Renew existing models through learning
Considering leadership, the brain activity of a leader has important characteristics. This isrepresented by the word “model”. When a leader exercises leadership over a group/organization, theleader is conscious about “what kind of situation is to be formed by taking what action and how inwhich direction through what methods”. What the leader is conscious of is maintained as a kind ofimage structure inside the leader’s head (i.e. inside the leader’s brain). This structure is called amodel (Takagi, 1995). The leader may have a clear model beforehand, or the model may become
progressively clearer in the process of working with the group/organization.
In both cases, what is critical is that the leader must have the group/organization embrace thesame model that the leader has. The leader must ensure all members have that model, and share it as
an overall group/organization. Of course, there will also be times when, as an existing model isshared, a new model evolves and is taken up by the leader. In any event, there is no questioning that
this is one of the crucial actions of leadership. This is also in a part and whole relationship.
What does it mean to have a model as a function of the brain? This is understood as thefollowing from research into “learning”. A model is a framework that recognizes the external world,
or oneself; i.e., it is a structure. It is a standard when understanding information obtained bothinternally and externally, and is like a filter letting us know what to choose and what to eliminate.
People make decisions and act on the basis of this model. So learning is renewing this model in
response to experience and circumstances, and as a result, actions change (Brookfield, 1986). As
already mentioned, the authors are scientists who use the agent-based approach, and the theory
regarding human learning and model renewal is indeed in line with this approach.
The fact that in management leaders constantly have new models for developing businessmeans that the leaders themselves are undergoing the process of learning. And the fact that the13

group/organization, the target object for the exercise of leadership, comes to embrace new models
also means that the group/organization is undergoing new learning formation. The
group/organization is a collection of individuals, so this means that each of those individuals is also
learning anew.
If the leader were able to exercise leadership by sitting in the cockpit of the organization andoperating a lever, there would be no learning by the group/organization. This is because the object of
the operation is a machine. The reality of displaying leadership by an autonomous individual to anautonomous group/organization is a simultaneous learning process for both sides.
Here we will touch on the formation of collaboration critical in the display of leadership fromthe relationship of the individual to the group/organization. The leader generates a new model frominteraction among the group/organization members. This is collaboration, i.e., cooperative creative
activities. To put it in a different way, it is learning by way of model renewal by many individuals.
Members with an existing model who have interacted mutually renew the model as a result of someform of inspiration, successfully creating a new model. The leader, who is positioned within thiscycle, also takes part in the learning process. This action in which the leader, who is merely a part,and the members, who are also merely a part, achieve mutually creative learning to generate a newmodel as a whole is collaboration. This is also a phenomenon known as self-organization in thesense that the group/organization gives rise to new order from within their creative interaction.

Chaos fluctuation and attractor shift
To take this further, what does it mean that the human brain has a model? Research into thechaos of complex systems is useful for understanding how the brain maintains and renews models(Tsuda, 1990; Kaneko & Tsuda, 1996; Kaneko, 2003). The brain is a complex system of vast
cooperation among nerve cells. Brain waves are one manifestation of brain activity, and it is as
well-known fact that chaos fluctuation can be observed when these brain waves are measured. The
brain does not continue operating with firm stability, rather it is constantly fluctuating irregularly.
The part and whole relationship can also be observed clearly in the brain activity fluctuations,i.e. the chaos fluctuation. This is a cruel experiment, but chaos fluctuation can be observed when an
electrode is inserted into the brain of a living monkey and the changes to the potential of a single

14

nerve cell are measured. It can also be observed when changes to the potential are measured in asingle functional region, and in the overall brain as a whole.
The fact that chaos fluctuation can be observed at the cell level, the functional region level,
and the overall brain level resembles the mechanism by which the ocean causes erosion of the land.
The erosion mechanism on the rocks at a small beach is similar to the erosion mechanism on theentire coast of that region. Seen from a high altitude, it closely resembles the shape of a ria coast. A
similar shape of the part and whole is called a fractal structure, and it can also be seen in the chaos
fluctuation of the brain.
What do we mean here when we say that the brain maintains and renews models? Plotting
the change in potential shown in brain cells and functional regions on a time-series graph produces
an infinite curved orbit with several strange converging vortexes (attractors) (Fig. 1). Observing thisover time reveals that after remaining in a specific converging vortex for a certain period, thepotential change shifts to another vortex. And, perhaps triggered by something, it can either return tothe original vortex or jump over to a completely new vortex.

Figure 1: Example of attractors

Source: Kaneko & Tsuda (1996) p.40

15

Next is simply conjecture on the authors’ part, and we really should wait for further progressin brain research, but the following can be considered. The brain’s maintaining a single model is acondition where brain activity converges for a set period in a certain attractor. Renewal of the modelthrough learning perhaps represents a change taking place in the brain activity attractor due to somekind of conditional change.
The display of leadership by a leader toward the group/organization is perhaps the act of
requiring a shift or transformation of the brain activity convergence position (attractor) of eachindividual. Or it can also represent the formation of new attractors as a group/organization. Again,
this is conjecture by the authors.
Moreover, in leadership, the leader mobilizes all aspects of communication technology. The
only way a leader can press the group/organization to shift internal attractors is to communicate withthe group/organization in various forms. Here the leader should be able to utilize the fact that theattractors of the overall group are in a fractal relationship with the attractors of individual members.
Working on the attractors of the parts makes it possible to work on the attractors of the whole. The
opposite is also possible. This, of course, is also conjecture by the authors, and much more research
into this is necessary.
The leader wants to and has to raise the motivation of the group/organization. The same canbe considered on this point as well. Motivation of the group/organization is heightened when the
mission is shared among the members including the leader, and activity begins to move in the same
direction. This is a fact that many know from experience, and is also confirmed through research(Takada, 2003). A similar conjecture to that above can also be made here — it is thought that aresonance of awareness and high motivation arises when the models held by individuals converge
into attractors of the overall group/organization to form a sense of common ownership. A leader who
seeks to motivate the group/organization must generate a resonance of awareness among members
through a shared model.

4.

What needs to be done in the leadership “D”

16Focusing on adult learning
When an individual acts as a leader, it means that the individual understands human nature,and has grown and developed as an adult to the extent of being able to lead the activities of thegroup/organization. Having an understanding as an adult is to understand “what humans are, what
they are thinking at what times, and how others respond to how oneself is”.
To design leadership “D”, that is, activities to foster and develop leaders, a group of theories
relating to methods for raising the adultness of individuals engaged in business activities is essential.
Raising adultness means that the adult is learning and growing. In this light, the framework of theagent-based approach used in “R” can be used here.
As will be mentioned later, the authors have been conducting case method classes in a
discussion format. From this, it has become apparent that adult learning requires the following three
conditions to be met (Takeuchi, 2004): 1. The autonomy of the individual in question is guaranteed;2. Specific matters are dealt with under specific conditions; 3. Mutual discussion, mutual
cooperation and mutual learning among multiple individuals.
These three conditions are in line with the agent-based framework. Lecturers and course
students are individuals who discuss from an autonomous position of independence, and form acollection of agents. They pursue learning by stating their opinions and judgements with each otherand renewing their own awareness, i.e. models. In short, the relationship activity of individual
entities promotes the learning of the individual entities.
It may be the case for young people’s learning, but for adult learning, there is no effect inliterally stating abstract concepts. Furthermore, learning goes hand in hand with some form of
self-denial. Adults move a step closer to self-denial only after their autonomy is guaranteed. For thisreason as well, there is a need to deal with tangible matters. Even when dealing with abstract matters,
adults do not connect those abstract matters to themselves. Moreover, they do not act in isolation,rather they act after consulting with and prompting a number of people.
Some readers may noticed this while reading, but the reason OJT is so effective under asuperior who understands is that the three conditions mentioned above are satisfied. In reality,
though, this is often little more than having people work under the banner of OJT. Even where
superiors comprehend the importance of OJT, there may be times when they will struggle to satisfy
those three conditions.

17

Additionally, the well-established practice of personnel rotation has been significance infostering employees when the wishes of the individuals concerned and the expectations of thesuperiors are aligned. Over the past few years a growing number of companies have reportedly been
unable to carry out effective staff rotation because of a lack of organizational leeway. A continuationof the organizational situation where the three conditions cannot be satisfied causes a stagnation inhuman resources development.

Rehearsal in the brain
In company organizations, business activities themselves often provide an opportunity forboth training and development at the same time. It is also a fact that personnel transfers are carriedout with this expectation. Considering the effectiveness of OJT, though, how to best utilize training
and seminars is crucial.
However, of the three conditions for effective adult training mentioned above, the second is
the most difficult to satisfy in classroom leadership training. The classroom is not a place of business,so even though the class may be handling actual business material, it is nothing more than mere
simulation.
Even though this is only simulation, at times the information activities within the brain canhave such a sense of realism that the training will progress with a strong feeling of reality. Thisfeeling of real substantiality is due to the actions of the brain function known as qualia (Mogi, 1997).
Naturally, real activity generates a sense of reality within the brain. This is normal. In thecase of qualia, a real sense of experience can be developed in the brain through the use ofsophisticated functions relating to the brain’s memory and recollection even though there is no
actual experience. Moving images of activity in the head can generate a sense of reality such as an
actual experience within the brain.
Applying this theory can process simulation within the brain while gaining a sense of reality
on a par with actual experience. This is a vital brain activity referred to as “rehearsal” in the brain(Bandura, 1985). In very simple terms, this is a sense of information in which only muscle activity is
missing from the actual experience, and at the same time, it is virtual activity with a sense of reality.
The effect from rehearsal in the brain is gained as though it were actual experience, and has greatsignificance in learning by the individual.

18

Athletes visualize within their brains the technique of their actions before the event, and the
movements their bodies will make to deliver victory. This is what is referred to as image training,
and is a rehearsal within the brain in which qualia is used.

Usefulness of the case method in leadership development
There is no question that experiencing business activity in itself provides an effective
opportunity for leadership development. So, we should look for potential that can supplement this orprovide an even greater opportunity in leadership training and seminars. Various teaching methods
are used in training and seminars. From among these, which methods are “D” for that stated atleadership “R”. Here we can focus especially on the “case method” from the viewpoint of adultlearning and rehearsal in the brain mentioned above.
Of course lessons can also take the form of a kind of workshop. The point is that therehearsal function in the brain can be applied while satisfying the conditions necessary for adultlearning. As will be mentioned later, the case method is one of the methods that can satisfy these
conditions.
The case method is a lesson format in which the class discusses business facts contained incase teaching material. Lecturers do not lecture on their own knowledge to the class. Rather, theylead and guide the discussion so that all members of the class can state their respective views andjudgements on an equal footing. Through this, the class collaborates to reach a decision on the
problems presented in the business example (Barnes et al., 1994). The case method clearly satisfies
the three conditions necessary for adult learning mentioned earlier.
How does the case method proceed in classes run by the first author? The following is his
sketch of what took place on one of particular day.
The discussions carried out in small groups before the class discussion havefinished. The students then moved from their group rooms to the class. Somestudents were walking along the corridor looking as though they needed moretime to finish their discussions. In the class, some took their seats while still
dragging out the discussion from the group room, while others were deep inthought as they read the case material one more time without being able to fully

19grasp the point at issue. The class comprises students with a diverse range ofjob experiences and backgrounds.
“Well then, let’s start the discussion.” The lecturer who guides the discussion
continually sends out verbal and nonverbal messages that he is also taking partin the learning process. “Civility”, “willing to take risks” and “appreciation ofdiversty” are essential for the class discussion. These three words that underpin
the group learning of the case method form the spirit embodied by the lecturer
and shared by the students. It is only when this condition is maintained in theclass that the students gain the trust and confidence of each other, and they gaina new sense of self.
The lecturer running the class throws out questions to initiate discussion, andwhile taking notes on the blackboard of the opinions raised, he seeks further
opinions. At times he sorts out the connection between opinions, andsummarizes the views expressed. He will stand at the head of the ebb and flow ofthe discussion, then move around to follow as the discussion heads along its
own course. At times he is very animated, and at other times he is more serene.
He is like an orchestra conductor creating the flow and atmosphere of the work.
The students are straightforward in expressing their opinions. Rather than being
hesitant, they are speaking out as if they don’t realize it. “There is no incorrectview” and “constructive counterarguments that respect the opinions of others”.
The ones who feel the most impact of their own opinions and the greatest senseof satisfaction or incompleteness after making their statement are the students
themselves.
In the second half of class discussion, the students are pressed to make ultimate
critical decisions as the people involved in the management issue. In terms ofreal experience, this is like being tested under fire. Here there is always amoment of deathly silence. Some students are waiting for the opportunity to
speak out, and having overcome any anxiety they may have felt, they express
their own decisions with courage.
At the end of class discussions, a broad sense of conclusion may form withcomments such as “I see,” or “Yes, that’s how it needs to be done”. Or they20

may leave the room at the end of the day with a strong feeling of discomfort orconflict.
There is no one conclusion. And what they learn during class is not the same —each student will go away with something different. The students will then utilize
what they have learned from navigating the twists and turns of class discussions.
They change their realization into learning based on trust. And what they gainfrom the accumulation of this is their growth as human beings — the very
objective of the case method.

Agent-based approach bridges “R” and “D”
Students who work on the case method are adults working in business management with life
experience of 20, 30 or 40 years. They deal with management issues in business on a daily basis.
They feel much more familiar with dealing with actual business examples, i.e. case study material,
than with any other theoretical material or texts containing abstract concepts.
They explore latent management problems as they discuss the case among themselves. Their
brains are actively considering how they as leaders can structuralize or model the problem so they
are able to reach a decision. Moreover, the students work closely together, constantly discussing
their ideas with each other to encourage and stimulate their thought processes.
Being able to describe the progress of learning in the case method class in this way meansthat the case method can be understood within the agent-based framework. An organization in which
many agents (autonomous entities) collaborate has the characteristic of a complex system. This
describes the case method class. Lecturers and all students organize themselves while maintaining
the necessary course to generate fresh solutions or innovations as leaders. This is a creative process
in which the members themselves circulate, rewrite and revise their own models and the model ofthe class as a whole, and also represents a relationship between parts and the whole. Class discussion
can constantly fluctuate, halt, jump, and create, or it can fail and go nowhere. The complex systemof the class newly forms and shifts attractors.
Participating in a case method class represents becoming one of the members of the process,and agreeing to self-denial and self-growth. And with this, rehearsal within the brain that goes with21

qualia. While the classroom does impose some constraints, it still provides a valuable opportunity
for adult growth and development. It also fosters their growth and development as leaders.
As pointed out in leadership “R”, the human brain has the characteristics of a complex
system from the cooperation and interaction among nerve cells and functional regions. A similar
thing occurs in the case method class where students are cooperating and interacting as autonomous
entities. This is the essence of why case method learning is effective for developing and fostering
leadership capabilities sought within the structure of the “individual” to the “group/organization”.

5.

Conclusion
Aiming at a fusion of humanities and technologies/engineering in leadership is certainly not

impossible using the agent-based approach. In this paper we pointed to this possibility, and sought todevelop the processes leading to the origination of the new science.
Here we would again like to touch on leadership engineering. Enhancing and refining theskill to motivate people should be possible by engineering leadership. In particular, the outcomes of“R” activities regarding the chaos and attractors of individuals and the group/organization isinvaluable in engineering leadership, and will lead to the development of accurate mind
manipulation techniques. For this reason, leaders who employ these techniques must have the trustof others and display growth as a human being. This is what is sought in the “D” activities ofleadership. How can and how should leadership techniques be used in the organization? Discussing
this issue in the case method class can facilitate the development of human trust and growth that aleader must have.
Finally, we will touch on one more point. This paper has not dealt with the weight that can begiven to the inherent qualities of an individual, i.e. genetic conditions, in improving leadershipcapabilities. Human capabilities are based on human qualities and experience, and in this paper, wehave dealt only with experience by way of learning. As an aside, research into identical twins has
shown that 30–40% of human behavioral characteristics are determined at the genetic level (Ando,
2000). In the near future, research into this area will have to be incorporated into the origination ofleadership R&D science, while maintaining our ethical values.

22Bibliography
Axelrod, R. (1997) The Complexity of Cooperation, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Axelrod, R. and M. D. Cohen (1999) Harnessing Complexity, New York: Free Press.
Juko Ando (2000) Kokoro ha dono yoni iden suru ka — Soseiji ga kataru atarashii idenkan [Howare mineds passed on? — New view of genetics presented by twins], Tokyo: Kodansha
Bandura, A. (1985), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Upper
Saddle River: Prentice-Hall
Barnes, L. B., C. R. Christensen, and A. J. Hansen (1994) Teaching and the Case Method: Text,
Cases, and Readings, Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
Brookfield, S. D. (1986) Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning, Berkshire: Open
University Press.
Kunihiko Kaneko (2001) Fukuzatsukei no biophysics [Biophysics of complex systems], Tokyo:
Kyoritsu Shuppan.
Kunihiko Kaneko (2003) Seimei to ha nani ka? — Fukuzatsukei seimeiron josetsu [What is life? —Introduction to the theory of life of complex systems], Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Kunihiko Kaneko and Ichiro Tsuda (1996) Fukuzatsukei no chaos scenario [Chaos scenario ofcomplex systems], Tokyo: Asakura Shoten
Langton, C. G. (1989) “Artificial Life”, In C. G. Langton (Ed.) Artificial Life, Boston: Addison
Wesley.
Kenichiro Mogi (1997) Noh to qualia [Brain and qualia], Tokyo: Nikkei Science.
Kazuhiko Nishina, Shinichi Kotani and Hideo Nagai (2003) Kinyu kogaku [Financial engineering],
Osaka: Osaka University Press.
Science Council of Japan (New Academic System Committee established under the Management
Council) (2003) Atarashii gakujutsu no taikei — Shakai no tame no gakujutsu to bunri no yugo
[New academic system — Learning for society and the fusion of humanities andtechnologies/engineering].
Simon, H. A. (1996) The Science of the Artificial (3rd ed.), Cambridge: MIT Press.

23

Haruo Takagi (1995) Network leadership, Tokyo: Nikkagiren Shuppan
Haruo Takagi, Kyoichi Kijima and Hiroshi Deguchi (1995) Multimedia jidai no ningen to shakai —Polyagent society [Humans and society in the multimedia era — Polyagent society], Tokyo:
Nikkagiren Shuppan
Asako Takada (2003) Kiki taio no efficacy management — “Team koryokukan” ga kagi wo nigiru[Efficacy management of crisis response — “Team efficacy” is the key], Tokyo: Keio University
Press.
Shinichi Takeuchi (2004) Hishijiteki ni oshieru to iu koto — Gakushusha ga jiko to mukiai, aratana
jiko wo kakutoku suru koto wo shiensuru oshiekata [Non-instructional teaching — Method of
supporting learners to face themselves and gain a new self], Yokohama: Keio University Business
School (Case study teaching material).
Ichiro Tsuda (1990) Chaos-teki nokan — Noh no atarashii model wo mezashite [Chaos-based viewof the brain — Aiming at a new model], Tokyo: Science.
Yukl, G. (2002) Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

24