Over recent years, I’ve participated in many ‘social media’ discussions on how complexity theory might inform our understanding of organizational dynamics. In doing so, I’ve been struck by the recurrence of a number of characteristic themes around which conversations tend to centre. These same themes often dominate books and articles on the subject. From one viewpoint, this thematic patterning of writing on organizational complexity might suggest a growing acceptance of insights that challenge management orthodoxy and provide a basis for more informed practice. However, I tend to agree with Ralph Stacey that many of the arguments put forward simply clothe conventional management ‘wisdom’ in the language of complexity – accepting, consciously or unconsciously, the taken-for-granted assumptions of choice, control and predictability on which the former is based. First, there is a tendency to see self-organization as a design choice, rather than as a natural dynamic of organization. As such it is usually positioned as a more enlightened, more participative (and sometimes even ‘democratic’) alternative to the top-down imposition of decisions. This leads to prescriptions that call for the introduction of structures, systems and processes that ‘enable’ self-organization (such as reduced hierarchy, networked organizational forms, ‘a few simple rules’, etc). But, self-organization happens! And it happens continuously. Even where managers adopt an unalloyed ‘command and control’ approach, outcomes still emerge from the widespread, self-organizing interplay of the themes arising in people’s everyday local interactions. If management edicts are the order of the day, the propensity to manage in this way is itself an outcome of these self-organizing dynamics. As is the tendency for this pattern of response to be sustained and embedded further. At the same time, the asymmetrical nature of the patterning process means that the possibility always exists for ‘pattern-switching’ to occur and novel practices to emerge. The promise of sure-fire solutions Secondly, prescriptions arising from the above narrative are typically presented as solutions to the complexities of organizational life. In other words, provided that managers (and/or consultants) use the prescribed processes and practices in the ways intended, the complexities can be overcome and improved performance assured. The irony of this position cannot be overstated. A complexity view of organizations – from whatever theoretical perspective it might be derived – provides a fundamental challenge to the assumptions of rationality, predictability and control implicit in the above prescriptions. Whilst managers (and anyone else, of course) can act with the intention of improving performance, it is (at best) misleading to suggest that positive outcomes will inevitably follow. Appeal to a higher order A popular variant of this second theme is an excursion into all things metaphysical and spiritual – especially in relation to the construction of organizational leadership. The general tenor of the argument tends to be that some new form of leadership can be constructed, by linking insights from the complexity sciences to spiritual values and beliefs or some other ‘higher order’. According to this formulation, the positive attributes of organization and/or wider society will then emerge, to replace those resulting from the perceived deficiencies of conventional management practice. The required shift is usually described in terms of the nature of leadership displayed by certain individuals. And this is typically reflected in an idealized set of positive qualities-cum-competencies that are considered to set such people apart.
Another way that this perspective is made manifest is through the reification (or ‘thingifying’) of organization. People imbue the ‘it’ of organization with ‘mind, energy, heart, soul and will’. And these are conceived as existing separately from the everyday actions and interactions of ordinary people. This seemingly gives ‘the organization’ the capacity to live, act and learn of its own volition. And this capacity is often said to be further enhanced by the influence of something even greater and more all-encompassing, which facilitates the desired transformation. Little if any acknowledgement is given in these conceptions of leadership and organization to the natural conflicts and contentions, power relations, and political dynamics etc of everyday organizational life. And again, from a complexity perspective, the dynamics through which any such constructions of organization and leadership might emerge also have the capacity to deliver wholly different outcomes.
From a complex social process view of organizational dynamics, what might be described as a ‘more spiritual’ or ‘more energized’ workplace is simply a reflection of the socially constructed view of people’s actual day-to-day interactions. Each of these interactions embodies the (‘spiritual’ or other) values and beliefs of those taking part. And these also reflect the generalized patterns of thinking and acting that have emerged and become taken-for-granted as a result of past sense-making.
So I’m not arguing here against the merit of seeking to incorporate a spiritual dimension in leadership practice and organizational life. Only that:
- this is not something that exists in some way ‘outside’ people’s day-to-day interactions - it manifests itself (or not) in the detail of the ways in which these interactions are played out; and
- the same dynamics of ongoing conversational interaction are equally capable of co-creating dysfunctional, repugnant, and spiritually bereft outcomes as they are the idealized and utopian conditions that are the assumed result of the ‘spiritual’ narrative.
Set-piece conversations
The final theme that tends to recur is the presumption that organizational complexity can be dealt with in structured workshops and similar, ‘set-piece’ events. Much of the writing and most of the consulting interventions take this form, with the focus being on using the prescribed approach to solve a complex problem or facilitate the interactions of multiple stakeholders around some other complex issue. But, most of the conversations through which people make sense of the world and decide how they will act take place outside these structured workshop settings – in the ‘open play’ of day-to-day organizational life. Workshops account for a very small fraction of the people-hours of interaction that take place in organizations. I see the real challenge as one of enabling insights about the complex social dynamics of organization to inform those local conversations. And, in particular, how to help those formally charged with leading others, to improve the quality of their participation in this ongoing conversational process.
Towards more active and informed participation
So, if self-organization is not within the gift of managers to ‘switch on and off’ at will… If concepts, tools and techniques cannot guarantee particular outcomes – even if managers ‘do things better and get them right’… If the only ‘spirituality’ that exists in organizations is that which is embodied in people’s everyday interactions… And if outcomes are determined primarily by the themes that emerge in these local conversations… Where does this leave us in terms of leadership practice?
As I suggest in Informal Coalitions, those in formal leadership positions, from CEO to front-line supervisors, would do well to:
- Shift the emphasis of their communication towards more active and informed participation in the local sense-making-cum-action-taking conversations through which outcomes emerge. That is, providing real vision - helping people to ‘see better’ in the light of actual events, rather than viewing their role as one of "getting the message across".
- Recognize that, in their formal leadership roles, they can’t not communicate. That is to say, everything that they say and do – as well as everything they don’t say and don’t do – ‘sends messages’ to people about what’s really important, how to behave, and so on. These ‘messages’ provide powerful inputs to the dynamic network of self-organizing conversations that define ‘the organization’.
- Accept that, while they can act with deliberate intent in pursuing a particular agenda, everyone else will be doing the same in relation to their own needs and understandings. What happens in practice will therefore emerge from the widespread interplay of these myriad intentions. And this means that neither they nor anyone else can control the outcomes that result.
Recent Comments