Stacey’s certainty-agreement matrix and ‘levels’ of complexity

In a recent blog post, Stephen Billing looks forward to Ralph Stacey’s next book, Complexity and Organizational Reality. It is due to be published in December.  Definitely one for the Christmas list!

I had become aware of the book through a comment posted on the NorthShore Group blog by Lucy Garrick. This included the transcript of a response that Stacey had made to her question about his oft-quoted Certainty-Agreement matrix.

Although the framework, which Stacey had developed in the mid-1990s, regularly crops up in blogs, on websites and during presentations, he no longer sees it as valid and useful.  His comment explains why this is the case, and the implications that this has for his current view of complexity and organizational dynamics.

In essence, he argues that …

• life is complex all the time, not just on those occasions which can be characterized as being “far from certainty” and “far from agreement” …
• this is because change and stability are inextricably intertwined in the everyday conversational life of the organization …
• which means that, even in the most ordinary of situations, something unexpected might happen that generates far-reaching and unexpected outcomes …
• and so, from this perspective, there are no “levels of complexity” …
• nor levels in human action that might usefully be thought of as a “system”.

It is this line of thinking that has led Stacey and his colleagues at the University of Hertfordshire to offer a radical challenge to the dominant management discourse about how organizations work. This is embodied in their notion of organizations as complex responsive processes.  And, as Stacey says in his response to Garrick’s question,

“It is this questioning that is blocked by using the diagram.”

Informal Coalitions adopts a similar position to Stacey’s on the dynamics of organizations. And a number of earlier posts on this blog echo Stacey’s comments. Examples include Does it make sense to differentiate between levels of complexity? and The dynamics of continuity and change in organizations - an analogy. So I sit four-square with Stacey and his colleagues in their challenge to conventional management wisdom and most of the conclusions that they draw.

Despite this, there is a part of me which feels that there might be some value in recognizing both that complexity is inherent in every human interaction – however mundane – and, at the same time, that some of these interactions take place within a more complex context than others. There is even a passing acknowledgement by Stacey himself that different degrees of complexity might exist, when he says,

“… we can never say that this is a situation of low complexity and that is a situation of high complexity, other than with hindsight, perhaps [my emphasis].”

So what leads me to suggest this, and what merit – if any – might there be in thinking this way?

I shall attempt to answer this – tentatively at least – in the next post.

Comments

[Rick Davies]

I have been looking for the original source for the Stacey matrix - where he first published it. Do you have any ideas?

[Chris Rodgers]

Hi Rick,

Ralph included the diagram in the second edition of his textbook, Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics, published in 1996. This diagram remains widely referenced and is popular with ‘complexity-aware’ consultants and managers alike. However, he now argues strongly against its use, for the reasons set out in the post. The content of this edition of the book predated his and his colleagues shift towards and understanding of organizational dynamics that they refer to as the complex responsive process of human interaction.

A used copy of this edition of the book is available at Abe Books: https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=22396098658

Cheers, Chris