Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Forum

Complexity Science Ideas Common Complexity

The Complexity Enter Organization


Development
Science Ideas for
Organizations

Science A body of knowledge has recently


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

86

ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi