0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
17 vues5 pages
A body of knowledge has recently come onto the scene which has challenged traditional OD. This paper will demonstrate several different ways in which complexity science ideas are applied viably in organizations. Scientists have discovered that life is most dynamic in a region known as the "edge of chaos" self-organization is a "fundamental principle of the universe in which we live and work"
A body of knowledge has recently come onto the scene which has challenged traditional OD. This paper will demonstrate several different ways in which complexity science ideas are applied viably in organizations. Scientists have discovered that life is most dynamic in a region known as the "edge of chaos" self-organization is a "fundamental principle of the universe in which we live and work"
Droits d'auteur :
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
A body of knowledge has recently come onto the scene which has challenged traditional OD. This paper will demonstrate several different ways in which complexity science ideas are applied viably in organizations. Scientists have discovered that life is most dynamic in a region known as the "edge of chaos" self-organization is a "fundamental principle of the universe in which we live and work"
Droits d'auteur :
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
come onto the scene which has Most of this paper will focus on the differences among complexity
Organizational offered a challenge to much traditional
OD. The book in this genre most familiar to OD practitioners is science OD interventions. Yet, significant commonalities appear. Because of the importance of the
Development Leadership and the New Sciences by
Margaret Wheatley (1992). In that “edge of chaos,” self-organization, and organizations as complex
Practitioner book, Wheatley explores findings
from quantum physics, self-organizing systems, and chaos theory and adaptive systems (CAS), a brief overview will be provided here. In the natural world, scientists have Eric B. Dent, PhD imagines applications for discovered that life is most dynamic University of Maryland organizations. The underlying in a region known as the “edge of Univeristy College rationale is that if change processes, chaos.” Organizations can also be structural dynamics, cooperative and characterized in terms of dynamism, competitive dynamics, and other ranging from equilibrium to chaos. organizational phenomena work well Organizations can most effectively in nature, then, perhaps, nature change if they are at the edge of should serve as a guide for how chaos (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998). Abstract organizations could function. Organizations closer to equilibrium are too rigid and stable. Organizations in Complexity science ideas have The journal Emergence: A Journal of chaos are too disorganized and recently begun to be applied to Complexity Issues in Organizations unordered. organizational dynamics. This set and Management (1999) devoted a of ideas, primarily learned from the special issue to a review of the major Self-organization is a “fundamental books on the market applying principle of the universe in which we natural sciences, appears to hold complexity science ideas to live and work. Open, self-organizing great promise for improving organizations. The struggle for OD systems use energy, material, and organizational functioning. At this practitioners has been, how do they feedback (information) from their in- early stage, it has not been obvious apply these new and exciting ideas ternal and external environments to for organizations? The literature is organize themselves” (Kelly and how to apply some of these ideas to inconsistent in reporting progress in Allison, 1999, p. 4). Self-organiza- organizations. A wide variety of applying complexity science ideas to tion thrives when a system is at the schemes and designs are being organizations (Levy, 1994). There is edge of chaos. Under those condi- considered and attempted. By its not yet a “complexity science theory tions, systems fundamentally trans- of organizations” or even a unified form themselves. Self-organization nature, complexity science provides view. One purpose of this paper is to has a number of benefits including great variation in its approaches. At demonstrate several different ways being adaptable, evolvable, resilient, the same time, a common body of in which complexity science ideas are boundless, and creative. These ben- concepts exists among other applied viably in organizations. efits must be weighed against the dis- differences. This paper will offer the Moreover, this paper will suggest a advantages, which include being taxonomy for understanding different nonoptimal (in that they often require first known taxonomy for types of complexity science OD redundant resources), noncontrol- understanding different and similar interventions. lable, nonpredictable, non-under- complexity science OD interventions. standable, and nonimmediate (Kelly, 1994, p. 22).
82
ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL
For some time now, it has been in 1. Intervene by performing different which can serve as guides. A vogue for OD practitioners to provide tasks - Brown and Eisenhardt second example is coadaptation, clients with non-mechanical 2. Intervene in a similar way with which B&E define as “the process metaphors for organizations. different assumptions - Dent whereby systems of related agents Perhaps the most popular notion is 3. Intervene by creating far-from- take mutual advantage of each other that organizations are organisms (or equilibrium (FFE) conditions - in order to change more effectively; amoebas). Complexity science invites Goldstein yet still be adaptive in each agent’s us to think more systemically and see 4. Intervene in the shadow particular situation” (Brown & that organizations are CAS’s, more organization - Shaw Eisenhardt,1998, p. 60). The authors like ecosystems than organisms. encourage organizations to Central to this perspective is the view Intervene by Performing determine whether they have that organizations be seen as appropriate mixes of collaboration and Different Tasks networks of multiple, interacting competition. Coadaptation consists agents which are fairly autonomous. The work of Brown and Eisenhardt of everyone performing a specific Each agent is constantly acting and (B&E) (1998, 1997) will serve as an role. reacting to what the other agents are example of those advocating that doing. They are coadaptive, taking complexity science OD practitioners One of their concluding images nicely “mutual advantage of each other in should intervene in organizations by captures the change in the OD order to change more effectively” performing different types of tasks consultant’s role. B&E suggest that (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998, p. 60). than those traditionally performed. B&E managers who compete on the edge Organizations whose members see argue that traditional approaches to must grow their businesses like themselves as part of an ecosystem strategy have overemphasized the prairies, rather than assemble them are often highly decentralized, degree to which planning is possible like toasters. The OD consultant collaborative (focus on relationships), in the face of rapid change. They assists, then, by becoming skilled in adaptive, see change as normal, and suggest that the most relevant way the balancing and timing act of prairie value-based. for OD practitioners to intervene in management rather than in the organizations is to develop methods relatively stable environment of Complexity Science OD which address an organization’s humanizing production. ability in the areas of improvisation, Interventions coadaptation, regeneration, Intervene in a Similar Way All of the categories of OD experimentation, and choreography with Different Assumptions interventions described below of transitions. This list is quite ascribe to the above description of different from other approaches in The work of Dent (1999) will serve edge of chaos, self-organization, and classical strategic management or OD. as an example of those advocating seeing organizations as CAS’s. The B&E contend that what is often cast that complexity science OD approach used to highlight the as bad management could be more practitioners should intervene in differences among them is to offer generously interpreted as well- organizations by performing similar an exemplar publication(s) to feature intentioned managers who are types of tasks as those traditionally a particular category. This taxonomy executing management practices performed, but do so using a different does not purport to cover all consistent with the punctuated- set of assumptions. Dent defines complexity science OD interventions equilibrium model. These practices, complexity science as “an approach comprehensively but rather is a start however, are simply not effective in to research, study, and perspective at seeing common threads across an increasing number of settings. which makes the philosophical disparate types of interventions. assumptions of the emerging B&E’s first area of review, worldview (EWV) (these include A number of different complexity improvisation, is essentially a check holism, perspectival observation, science interventions can be to see whether the organization is mutual causation, relationship as unit classified into the four categories operating in the unstable edge of analysis, and others [described listed here which are labeled by the between the two attractors of below]” (p. 5). Dent argues that author(s) who is used here as the structure and chaos, where traditional OD, and much of science, exemplar for that category. The labels businesses adaptively innovate and rests upon the philosophical are intended to be descriptive of that consistently execute. B&E provide assumptions that comprise the category. checklists (and give normative traditional worldview (TWV). These responses for their excellent cases) include objective observation, linear 83
VOLUME 21 • NUMBER 2 • SUMMER 2003
causation, reductionism, and other storytelling about the life-giving In order for an organization to grow assumptions often listed in narrow forces, and imagining what might be and develop, it must enter into a state definitions of the scientific method. (Bushe, 1995). If an organization has of FFE conditions. Goldstein (1994) Perhaps the most useful mental model a 94% customer satisfaction rating, sees the challenge of organizations for thinking about the TWV and EWV and they want to improve it, traditional as “not how to pressure a system to is that of a polarity (Johnson, 1992). OD interventions would center on change, but how to unleash the Polarities are sets of interdependent gathering data from the 6% who are system’s self-organizing potential to opposites. unsatisfied, assuming that if their meet a challenge” (p. 9). The work of issues can be addressed, then change agents then becomes How OD practitioners conduct an customer satisfaction would be identifying equilibrium attractors and intervention greatly depends on the enhanced. An AI intervention would facilitating FFE conditions that will assumptions they make. Training, for center on the 94% who are satisfied, allow for system transformation. example, can be vastly different if find out what has satisfied them, and Equilibrium attractors are often TWV or EWV assumptions are made. have the organization make efforts to discovered by the lack of new Trainers making TWV assumptions be consistent in delivering that and information entering an organizational set themselves up on a pedestal in improving it. process. Many techniques have been the position of imparting knowledge developed to increase the introduction to the students. EWV trainers may Intervene by Creating Far of information available to a system see their roles as primarily creating a concerning its own functioning and fertile environment in which learning, From Equilibrium (FFE) thereby generating FFE conditions. that is largely self-directed, occurs. Conditions Goldstein advocates techniques such Appreciative inquiry (AI) is an as cultural difference questioning and As mentioned above, self- approach to problem solving which purpose contrasting. The intent is to organization is central to each of the shows that similar work, using amplify differences in information complexity perspectives on OD. It is different assumptions, can be vastly which releases the nonlinearity perhaps most greatly emphasized in dissimilar. Central to AI is the inherent within an organizational the work of Goldstein (1994). assumption of perspectival system. Goldstein finds several common OD observation - that inquirers alter the practices unhelpful. He questions the phenomena under observation in the Intervene in the Shadow pillars of traditional change way that they inquire (Cooperrider management - extensive planning and Organization 1990). This is fundamentally opposite design of the change effort, precise the traditional scientific assumption The work of Shaw (1997) will serve assessment of the current situation, that inquiry takes place in an objective as an example of those advocating accurate anticipation of resistance to manner at an arms-length distance, that complexity science OD change, and adeptness at overcoming allegedly unbiased by the observer. practitioners should intervene in the resistance - are all predicated on Steeped in traditional OD practice is shadow organization. Shaw accepts assumptions that rarely hold in the problem-solving mindset. Typical Stacey’s (1996) argument that “self- situations of organizational change. OD textbooks suggest a number of organizing processes are to be found Moreover, this classic success approaches which advocate primarily in an organization’s shadow strategy may not only be unhelpful, it determining the gap in performance system - that is the complex web of may make the situation even worse. and taking steps to bring the current interactions in which social, covert situation up to the expected or ideal Most common approaches to change political and psycho-dynamic situation. The emphasis is on what is can be categorized as either the overt systems coexist in tension with the wrong and how to fix it. use of management pressure or the legitimate system” (Shaw, 1997, p. gentler, participative approaches 235). In the traditional AI focuses on what is right in an conceptualization, organizations are advocated by OD. Both, however, organization rather than what is seen as open systems in dynamic are hierarchically driven. The wrong. A typical data collection equilibrium with their environments. humorous example of the CEO who interview would focus primarily on The informal organization, then, is decides his organization will what issues an interviewee has, seen as working at cross purposes implement Deming’s TQM by telling his what problems he sees, what to the formal organization. Shaw top team, “either you find a way to improvement ideas he has, and so believes that conceptualizing drive out fear in this organization or forth. An AI interview focuses on organizations as complex adaptive your replacement will!” incorporates what is working, identification and systems is a much more powerful 84 parts of both approaches. perspective.
ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL
Shaw provides a detailed example of Final Thoughts on Bushe, G. R. (1995). “Advances in how she and her colleagues appreciative inquiry as an intervened in a municipality pseudo- Complexity Science OD organization development named “Boroughsville.” Shaw notes Interventions intervention,” Organization that if an organization is an open Development Journal. Vol. 13 Over time, we can expect to see a system in dynamic equilibrium, then No. 3, Fall, pps. 14-22. broadening and deepening of the the natural activities for an OD Cooperrider, D. L. (1990). “Positive elements described in this paper. The consultant are to encourage imagery, positive action: The commonalities may increase and participative management, improve affirmative bias of organizing,” become more unified. The teamwork and communication, and in S. S. Srivastva & D. L. classification taxonomy may expand. manage change and transition. None Cooperrider, Appreciative There may be a greater use of of these activities was central to the management and leadership. ecosystem metaphors. Rather than work in Boroughsville. Shaw and (pps. 91-125). San Francisco: thinking of OD work in terms of colleagues did do some work with the Jossey-Bass. interventions - which connote a formal organization, but for purposes Dent, E. B. (1999). “Complexity controlled, coming-between activity - of establishing relationships, not science: A worldview shift,” the field may adopt a term such as collecting data. The primary focus of Emergence: A Journal of cultivation which implies an ongoing the work was to follow where Complexity Issues in nourishing of desired change. connections led, create venues for Organizations and employees to hear and tell their Finally, an example of a new category Management. Vol. 1, No. 4, pps. stories, and to experience being adrift for the taxonomy might be “working 5-19. within the system. with different parts of the system.” Emergence: A Journal of Complexity Self-organization requires some type Issues in Organizations and Shaw provides a fascinating example Management (1999). Vol. 1, No. of boundary or container to keep of efforts to thwart self-organizing 2. dynamics from flying off into chaos. activities, intentionally or otherwise. Goldstein, J. (1994). The unshackled Many OD interventions consistent with In a discussion at one of the open organization. Portland: complexity science are drawing forums, a low-ranking employee Productivity Press, Inc. boundaries in different places. Many related an incident of problems she Johnson, B. (1992). Polarity large-group interventions, for was having with her management. A management. Amherst: HRD example, are including customers much higher-ranking executive in the Press, Inc. within the boundaries, and they are room took great interest in the story Kelly, K. (1994). Out of control. attempting to deal with the whole and engaged in actions to validate the Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. system or a large portion of it. story and improve the situation. This Kelly, S. & Allison, M. A. (1999). The Complexity science may result in a activity, though, disturbed the complexity advantage. New seismic shift in OD from dealing managers in intervening levels. They York: McGraw Hill. primarily at the individual and group and their colleagues felt undermined Levy, D. (1994). “Chaos theory and levels to the group and organization and instigated several formal actions strategy: theory, application, and levels. (union action, letter to the CEO, etc.) managerial applications,” to put a stop to the open forums. At Strategic Management Journal. References the next meeting, the consultants Vol. 15, 167-178. were able to explain to the much Brown, S. L. & Eisenhardt, K. M. Shaw, P. (1997). “Intervening in the larger group that gathered that the (1997). “The art of continuous shadow systems of self-organizing activity represented change,” Administrative organizations,” Journal of amplifying feedback loops. The Science Quarterly. Vol. 42, pps. Organizational Change actions to squelch the activity were 1-34. Management. Vol. 10, No. 3, all equilibrium-seeking practices that Brown, S. L. & Eisenhardt, K. M. pps. 235-250. the organization had long (1998). Competing on the edge: Stacey, R. (1996). Complexity and institutionalized. Framed in these Strategy as structured chaos. creativity in organizations. San terms, the several executives and Boston: Harvard Business Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. others in the room were able to see School Press. Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership that their control orientation was too and the new science. San heavy handed, and they allowed the Francisco: Berrett-Koehler self-organizing activities to continue. Publishers. 85
VOLUME 21 • NUMBER 2 • SUMMER 2003
Dr. Eric Dent is presently Chair, Doctoral Programs and Professor, Graduate School of Management and Technology, University of Maryland University College. His research interests include leadership in dynamic, turbulent environments; mental models which underlie organizational behavior; and, complexity science applications in organizations. Dr. Dent is a consultant and invited speaker to national audiences. He is committed to an interdisciplinary research agenda and has published in many fields including behavioral sciences, education, consulting, history, complexity science,communication, spirituality, and philosophy. Contact information: University of Maryland University College E-mail: edent@umuc.edu
Karakteristika Razmenjivača Toplote I Njen Uticaj Na Izbor Regulacionih Ventila Characteristic of Heat Exchanger and Its Influence On Selection of Control Valve