Complexity in organizations

SCHUMACHER COLLEGE
An International Centre for Ecological Studies

Holistic Science MSc 2001/2002, module:
Comunity Level or Emergence

Complexity in organizations
by Michael Crowley

Introduction

Group dynamics are ultimately the dynamics of relating. True relating comes not from a blueprint of action imposed from the outside, but from within experiences as they are lived in the moment. This paper argues that for fresh engagement in the organizations of which we are apart, we should work to deconstruct notions that organizations exist outside of ourselves and instead recognize our direct experiences within those organizations and the roles we play in forming and being formed by our organizations.

To identify some perspectives of organizations, the first portion of this paper reviews Patricia Shaw’s book in print, Complexity and Emergence in Organizations, exploring her notion of participative self organization versus systemic self organization. The second portion then takes the concept participative self organization and applies it to six principles of complexity theory in order to understand the dynamics involved in maintaining the order we experience in our involvement within organizations.

Misappropriated Teleology

Patricia Shaw discusses a common metaphor used to describe organizations. She writes that people often make reference to organizations as though organizations were separate entities or an “it” which is somehow separate from the immediate influence of people. Shaw contends that relating to organizations (and especially corporations) in this way perpetuates a rather dangerous metaphorical interpretation of organizations “‘as if’ an inanimate, rather nebulous entity called a corporation or a ‘system,’ can have intention…”(Shaw, 2000 p. 1) and with it, its own ethical responsibilities. A paradox arises in this metaphor when those describing an organization forget the “as if” conjecture and assume that the organization is actually a separate entity apart from its members. Questions of intention and ethical responsibility within an organization consequently lay “both” with the individuals involved within the organization “and” within the organization as an autonomous “system.”

Shaw theorizes that this duelist perspective is one of the means by which people have come to think of themselves as victims of systems. If an organization such as a corporation hurts a group of people or the environment in some way, using the “as if” conjecture to lay blame can miss the real causes of the problem in question. Both the “system” and the people involved in making decisions in the system are said to have intentionally caused the problem. “Both” the decision makers “and” the “system” itself are to blame. Shaw says that this type of blame assumes that only the people who are considered leaders have control over the system’s actions, and that others involved who are not considered leaders (whether they work within the organization or interact with it in some way) are considered passive victims without responsibility for their own actions within the system. This perspective assumes that non decision makers are victims of a system whose ethical responsibility and intent lie outside of their domain of control -“the system made me do it.” This is a dis-empowering perspective for those not considered to be leaders within the system and a nonsensical perspective for those considered to be leaders (the leaders are only trying to guide the system’s intent). Real empowerment, as we shall see, is in the realization that there is no system as-such, and that our interactions are what really create the reality in which we construct our perspectives. This has profound implications for all involved in organizations.

How have we come to take the “as if” metaphor of organizations literally? Shaw traced what she believes to be the origins of this type of thinking to the 17th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Kant developed a way of thinking which was largely in response to the new metaphysical problems of the scientific revolution. Because humans were considered part of nature and subject to its universal, deterministic laws such as Newton’s laws of motion, Western thought was facing a new paradox. How could humans be subject to nature’s laws, yet have the power of rational choice and freedom to set their own goals? To resolve this paradox, Kant developed a school of thinking where humans were “both” subject to the laws of nature “and” free to form their own rational choices and set their own goals. Kant viewed this as a resolution because humans had the ability to rationally understand the laws of nature and then make free choices of their own goals in relation to it. They can step back from the system they are subject to, understand it, then make choices as to what they would like to do within the system.

Kant is considered by some to be the first systems thinker. He held that nature unfolds its own forms and patterns in relation to the interactions of its parts. Nature, in this way, is a self organizing system which realizes its own form as it develops “as if” it had a goal and intention of its own. The “as if” conjecture, according to Kant is “purposive” so far as the parts dynamically create and sustain a “whole as an emergent property” (Shaw, 2000, p. 4). Because humans can understand the interactions of the system as unfolding its own purpose as ascribed by the perception of humans as they interact with and objectively observe nature, Kant maintained that humans are free to rationally choose their own goals within their understanding of the dynamics of the system.

Importantly, Kant made a distinction between natural and human systems and warned that ascribing a purpose to a system (a methodology referred to as “formative teleology” by Shaw), should only be applied to non-human systems. Kant warned that if humans describe human systems by using formative teleology, then goal setting would be displaced from the freedom of rational choice of the autonomous individual to the dictates of an abstracted systemic purpose separate from the direct human experience. This is precisely what Kant sought to resolve and avoid. Goal setting, according to Kant, can only take place within the individual human “as if” they, as an autonomous individual, were carrying out universal ethics which, according to one’s own individual human understanding of the dynamics of the system they are involved in, should be carried out universally by everyone. Therefore, formative teleology may be ascribed to non-human systems through hypothesis and experiment, allowing for rational choice of action which is appropriate to the system in question, but interactions among humans should be left to the autonomous individual to act “as if” their actions should be universally carried out by everyone.

The origins of the “both… and” way of thinking, according to Shaw, have arisen in the way we think about organizations because, since Kant, we have done exactly what Kant had warned against -assigned human systems their own goals and intentions. Shaw suggests that the scientific revolution has lead us so far into the control, objective perspective of the natural world that, when scientific epistemology moves into the realm of human interactions in organizations, in the quest for objectivity, we have removed ourselves from our basic relations to each other. The result is that we tend to externalize ethics to the realm of an “it,” a domain of the world which “both” constitutes humans “and” lies outside of human subjectivity. Analytical formulations of ethics which arise from applying formative teleology to human systems tend to favor increased control over the “system,” yet contrary to the intent of those performing the analyzation, the formulated ethics fail to recognize the “as if” metaphor of the system as an independent entity. Exactly as Kant had warned, forgetting the “as if” metaphor “both” assumes an intent of the system, subjecting participants to the control of centralized and abstractly formulated ethical ideals, “and” assumes that participants are still free, autonomous human beings who are capable of making rational decisions.

Process and Paradox

The scientific revolution, as observed by Kant and others, has relied upon the elimination of paradox. Pure, reducible knowledge cannot be obtained in a mechanistic, causal fashion if the phenomenon in question cannot be observed objectively and, hence, controlled. Therefore Kant’s thinking worked to eliminate the paradox of the observer within a system being observed.

While recognizing the genius of Kant and the successful applications of his thinking into the advancement of science, Shaw and other complexity theorists suggest that a re-introduction of paradox into scientific thinking may now be useful instead of harmful. Shaw suggests that understanding paradox allows for a more direct understanding of the phenomenon at hand, revealing more into our experiences as they are lived within the systems we constitute. For instance, Shaw asks three questions: 1. “How is it that organizations stay the same in order to get work done and also change in order to surprise the competition?”; 2. “are we actively forming the organizations we work in, or are we being formed by these organizations?”; and, 3.” are organizations simple or are they complex?” (Shaw, 2000, p. 8). Instead of responding to these questions using the “both…and” response, Shaw proposes that a more phenomenological response would be that the seemingly paradoxical and opposing instances hence described exist “at the same time.”

Shaw explains this paradoxical concept through the early complexity theorist Ilya Prigogine’s work with dissipative structures. These structures, as proposed by Prigogine, exhibit a fundamental feature of life -they display emergent structures which exist far from equilibrium where order emerges from disorder. A simple example is the spiral vortex formed when water in a bathtub moves through a drain. Through complex dynamics involving gravity, fluid dynamics and the conditions of the physical features of the bathtub, the spiraling vortex of the water arises as a structure which is transitory (the water is constantly moving down the drain), yet holds a coherent form. Dissipative structures therefore maintain a continually dynamic state -they are able to stay the same and change, form and be formed, and exhibit complex and simple states all at the same time. Prigogine’s observations of dissipative structures suggest that the answers to paradoxical questions both in natural and human systems are not limited to the Kantian framework. Methodologically setting conditions of non paradoxical order, control and predictability are not seen as the only means to understand how systems are able to exist structurally. The unfoldment of order may at times be understood through a phenomenological experience of the seeming paradoxical order of dissipative structures which, by the nature of changing dynamics itself, gives rise to unpredictable, yet experientially observable order.

Therefore, Prigogine’s dissipative structures, unlike Kant’s formative teleology, can be applied to human systems because understanding dissipative structures recognizes the continually adaptive and participatory nature of all components. For human systems, every member of an organization maintains order within the organization, yet continually changes personally and within the organization, is formed by and forms the organization, and exhibits simple and complex behaviors, interactions and feelings (exhibits intrinsic human nature) all at the same time. It is through these principles that “...the individual and the group are the singular and plural of the same phenomenon, namely, human relating” (Shaw, 2000, p. 12).

To identify the distinct characteristics involved in recognizing dissipative structures, Shaw characterizes the Kantian approach as systemic self organization and the Prigogine approach as participative self organization. In systemic self organization, the emphasis is on control and the elimination of paradox in order to impute an objective understanding of the system being observed. The purpose and ethical dimensions of the system in question, whether human or non-human, when understood from the systemic self organization perspective, is attributed to the system from an external perspective, and laws of the system’s behavior are hypothesized and tested. Participative self organization, on the contrary, reintroduces paradox by observing that the system is dynamical and continually emergent, where the individual and the whole exist at the same time. The purpose and ethical dimensions of participative self organization is “intrinsic to the process,” dependent upon the intent of all those involved and the dynamics of their interactions, which perpetually construct a future which is ultimately not controllable or knowable. Therefore when observing human systems through the perspective of participative self organization, the reality of the system in question is intersubjective, arising through the continual dynamical interactions of its members. In this sense, the system cannot exist independently from its members, and ethics cannot be formulated in advance of action through Kantian universals; ethics and organizational structure are continually contextual and in flux, arising in process.

The metaphor “at the same time” is therefore expressed to more accurately describe our experiences as they are lived phenomenologically and in process. In our daily lives, we cannot analyze every interaction and control every outcome of our actions in order to live more predictably; this is simply impossible and undesirable. The world as we live and participate within it does not appear to us analytically, it appears in process. Therefore ethics cannot be formulated analytically in order to determine all future action to be taken because the outcome of actions cannot be known before the action is introduced. According to Shaw, ethics should arise within the process of interaction, embedded within the intent of acting individuals.

To demonstrate the process of this type of contextual ethic, Shaw introduces how the concept of time arises in participative self organization. Instead of the cause and effect linear time sequence of the systemic self organization notion of Kantian pre-formulated ethics, Shaw proposes thinking of time as “circular in the sense that the emerging future is constructed, on the basis of the past, in the self organizing processes of interaction in the present” (Shaw, 2000, p. 10). In other words, the living present, which is constructed on the basis of past experiences, and is continually unpredictable, novel and dynamic in the sense of dissipative structures, is both ordered and disordered at the same time. We create our reality (the basis of new interactions) through our actions in the present which are based on our experiences in the past. Reality and our experience in the world is not “out there” in some abstracted system, but rather within us and our relations, now.

Shaw urges us to revisit our lived experience by not taking the “as if” metaphor for granted. If this is done in the organizations of which we are a part in our daily lives, then there is the danger of reifying our experiences into what Shaw describes as a “one story” explanation. The “one story” can become a routine which appears unchanging and predictable. It is a fabricated reality which exists independently of those who constitute it, lending easily to a “both…and” interaction with the mythical “system.” By living in the present and acting within interactions, Shaw suggests that a healthy human organization can continually be adaptive, novel or creative through an understanding that the systems of which we are apart are us. We are responsible for our actions through the legitimacy of our interactions and our recognition that those interactions create the reality of experience which is the basis for further interactions.

In the next section, I would like to use Shaw’s basis of participative self organization in the application of six principles of complexity theory as described by Peter Reason and Brian Goodwin in their paper “Toward a Science of Qualitites in Organizations: Lessons from Complexity Theory and Postmodern Biology” to further understand the dynamics of human interaction which give rise to organizational structure.

Six Principles of Complexity in Participative Self Organization

Inquiring into the interpersonal dynamics of organizations from the perspective of participative self organization requires that the inquirers themselves are also active members of the organization being investigated. From the participative self organization perspective, outside, objective researchers cannot be as effective in understanding the dynamics of the organization in question because their experience within that organization is limited. Further, if the researchers actively remove themselves as much as possible from day to day interactions of people within an organization in an attempt to objectively observe the “system,” the result may almost certainly be subject to a formative teleological analysis. Therefore, the following conceptual tools for understanding the dynamics of organizations should be understood intersubjectively from the perspective of those who constitute the organization, inquiring together as co-researchers into their own experiences. Ultimately, this may provide a richer and more meaningful experience for the researchers as they come to understand their own experiences and relations to each other.

As we co-inquire into the organizations of which we are apart from the perspective that each inquirer is the singular and plural at the same time, understanding of some basic principles of complexity theory can greatly enrich a mutual understanding of experience. Of course, principles of complexity theory, as in any principles used in the inquiry process, should be understood as metaphors, and not laws in the formative sense. The use of metaphor is intended to reflect our direct experience and not lead us to “misleading realism” (Cited in Reason and Goodwin, Shotter, 1993 p. 1). Reason and Goodwin assert that in our experience the use of metaphor is “unavoidable,” and that “the first question… is whether we can ‘see through’ our metaphor (Hillman, 1975), to use the metaphor rather than having it use us, so to speak, and avoid the trap of reifying our metaphor and applying it indiscriminately” (Reason; Goodwin, 1999, p. 299). The problem of formative teleology when understanding human organizations from the perspective of our experiences described through metaphor is therefore not as prevailing as it is in the Kantian framework. Understanding direct experience and using principles of complexity theory to aid in that understanding should be done so in an attempt to eliminate the prospect of creating reality separate from experience itself -the “as if” should not be forgotten, but engaged hermeneutically. The use of principles of complexity should therefore aid in the conscious identification of experiences and hopefully lead to a refreshed engagement in relations through increased self and group awareness.

Rich Interconnections

Rich interconnections form the web of relations in the world, dynamically unfolding the very essence of the way we relate to each other, and “are the very ground from which new order may emerge” (Reason; Goodwin, 1999 p. 304). Rich interconnections are the reciprocal relationships with those whom we interact with daily. The richer the interconnection, the more robust and strongly meaningful it is in the construction of our daily reality. Through personal and intersubjective identification of rich interconnections, those involved in organizations can may be able to refresh their engagement, see how their actions influence other, and potentially identify those with whom they may wish to strengthen relations. When inquiring into the dynamics of organizations, inquires should first identity with whom they share rich interconnections.

Rich interconnections are also enriched through diversity, which give rise to a more dynamic process of relating and creative emergent order.

Iteration

Shaw’s concept of time in creating reality within participative self organization is congruent with the principle of iteration. Through basing our actions on experiences in which simple rules of interaction have emerged from past actions, a complex order of group relation emerges from relatively simple behavior. While this does not necessitate pre-formulated, ethics, it does create a reality of an immediately lived experience in which action is fluid within the moment. Through this action, the group may exhibit repetitive, yet unpredictable behavior where the subtle order of interactions emerges its own unique pattern. This pattern is subject to constant change because the relations within the group are in constant flux, always changing and adapting to changes in initial conditions and new, unpredictable actions carried out within the group.

Emergence

Emergence is the unpredictable dynamical order which is constantly being formulated through the iterative process of group relations. Emergence cannot be formulated outside of the interconnections of the organization’s participants -it is not an imposed structure. Emergence is the dissipative structure relevant to the context of the relations of people, and the subtle order which they create. In the words of Henri Bortoft (1996), the emergent order is the “absent whole,” it is not an “it,” but rather the experience of the individual as the singular and plural at the same time -as the individual is engaged in the process of relating.

Holism

Holism is the very idea that the individual can be the singular and plural at the same time. No person within an organization can decide the ethics or outcome of the actions of other people. No hierarchical structure exists outside of people’s own conceptual constructs, or pre-formulated ideas of the consequences of their actions. This metaphor, which I believe is key to understanding participative self organization, is pivotal to understanding the how people have come to think of themselves as victims of systems. If the concept of holism is not recognized, then participative self organizational emergence cannot occur on a level of genuine interactions.

Fluctuations

Changes in initial conditions found within the iterative process are what give rise to fluctuations. Fluctuations are what give rise to new, unpredictable emergence, and as has been suggested by complexity theorists, helps to maintain dynamic stability. If a group of people find that they have fallen into a very strongly ordered behavior, they may not have recognized the potential for more active and dynamic rich interconnections. It is understood in the science of complexity that fluctuations in dynamic systems are not always the result of external forces, but intrinsic to the process of relating itself. Therefore, fluctuations in group dynamics are a healthy aspect of relating as long as the group is strong enough to adapt to large fluctuations, as well as recognize the effects of too much order (not enough fluctuations). Of course, any fluctuation in group dynamics should be understood contextually (by those who are experiencing fluctuations in their relations).

The Edge of Chaos

Reason and Goodwin introduce the notion of the edge of chaos as that dynamic state where groups are most adaptive. It is a state where the emergent order of the group is not too repetitive, and not too chaotic (no repeatable pattern of interaction). In essence, the edge of chaos is the most creative dynamic state of a group, where people are able to confidently take action in the moment to explore new ideas and refresh interconnections. Reason and Goodwin quote the following reflection of group dynamics experienced in 1986 by Peter Reason and John Heron before Heron and Reason’s knowledge of the concept the edge of chaos:

From our early inquiries we came to the conclusion that a descent into chaos would often facilitate the emergence of new creative order… If the group is really going to be open, adventurous, exploratory, creative, innovative, to put all at risk to reach our for the truth beyond fear and collusion, then once the inquiry is well under way, divergence of thought and expression is likely to descend into confusion, uncertainty, ambiguity, disorder, and even chaos, with most if not all researchers feeling lost to a greater or lesser degree.

There can be no guarantee that chaos will occur; certainly one cannot plan it. The key validity issue is to be prepared for it, to be able to tolerate it, to go with the confusions and uncertainty; not to pull out of it anxiously, but to wait until there’s a real sense of creative resolution. We make this argument for openness to extreme uncertainty to counterbalance the human being’s enormous capacity for creating and sustaining order, even when such order is no longer appropriate. (Reason and Heron, 1986 p. 470, Cited in Reason and Goodwin, 1999, p. 311)

The creative spontaneity of relating on the edge of chaos assumes that the outcomes of actions cannot be predicted and that order should not always be imposed from an abstracted analyzation of the group’s interactions. Relating on the edge of chaos relies upon the trust of one’s self and trust of others with whom one is relating to engage in a reciprocity of actions where new and novel ideas will emerge. The skill of the group as a whole lies in the ability of each person to move fluidly with the process of the group as it unfolds, genuinely interacting so that in a very real experiential sense, the individual is the singular and plural at the same time. A richly interconnected group should be able to move in and out of coherent order and continually emerge from chaos in novel ways.

Conclusions

Through revisiting what is meant when discussing organizations and the “systems” in our lives, I find that an experiential understanding of reality naturally engages one in a more meaningful understanding of one’s daily interactions. By breaking a reification of experience which separates people from the relations which they form and are formed by, there is a potential to move from a feeling of being victimized by our relations (the system) to feeling of empowerment to actively engage in the unfoldment novelty. The principles offered by complexity theory aid in the rediscovery of the dynamics of the interactions in our lives, reminding us of the obvious -what we experience every day. Rediscovering our involvement in these interactions rediscovering that we can live in paradox I believe calls forth our daily experiences as experienced phenomenologically into a conscious feeling of existential belonging. We are the world that we create and we create the world. Understood intersubjectively with those we interact with daily, this can be a liberating experience, allowing for the group as a whole to experience freedom and express themselves more openly and creatively. While the sciences of complexity are by no means a complete science, especially when it comes to understanding organizations, I believe that the very process of rediscovering our engagement in groups makes the endeavor worthwhile. After all, intrinsic to the sciences of complexity is the idea that nothing is predictable, static, or complete, and we are always engaged in dynamically changing and ongoing process.

Bibliography

Hillman, J. 1975. Revisioning Psychology. New York: Harper Collophon.

Heron, J.; Reason, P (eds). 1985. Whole Person Medicine: a co-operative inquiry. British Postgraduate Medical Federation, University of London.

Reason, P.; Goodwin, B. 1999. “Toward a Science of Qualities in Organizations: Lessons from Complexity Theory and Postmodern Biology,” Concepts and Transformation: International Journal of Action Research and Organizational Renewal. Vol. 4.

Shaw, Patricia. 2000. Complexity and Emergence in Organizations. Routledge. IN PRINT.

Shotter, J. 1993. Cultural Politics of Everyday Life: social construction and knowing of the third kind. Buckingham: Open University.

For more information about Schumacher College and its courses, please contact :

The Administrator, Schumacher College,
The Old Postern, Dartington, Totnes, Devon, TQ9 6EA.
Tel : +44 (0)1803 865934 Fax : +44 (0)1803 866899
Email : admin@schumachercollege.org.uk
Website : www.schumachercollege.org.uk

Schumacher College is part of the Dartington Hall Trust, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and as a charity (company no. 1485560, charity no. 279756). Registered office: The Elmhirst Centre, Dartington Hall, Totnes, Devon TQ9 6EL, UK.