Ralph Stacey and Etienne Wenger #2: On systems v processes

In a recent post, I suggested that I could see many parallels between Etienne Wenger’s writing on communities of practice and Ralph Stacey’s “complex responsive process” view of organizational dynamics.  This runs counter to comments made by Stacey himself, in the 5th edition of his Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics textbook. 

The first criticism that Stacey makes relates to Wenger’s use of what might be termed “systems-based” language.  And it’s this to which I want to turn in the second post in this mini series.

A matter of language?

First, it is true to say that Wenger does, on occasion, use system-style language in his book Communities of Practice. However, nowhere does he talk of organizations as ‘nested systems’ of parts and wholes, in the way that most of the people do who would call themselves “systems thinkers”.  Indeed, Stacey himself acknowledges that Wenger “mostly talks in terms of the process [my emphasis] of negotiation…”.

As part of his criticism, Stacey draws particular attention to Wenger’s use of the term “boundary”, to describe the split between those participating in a particular practice and those who are not. And he also cites his reference to local and global “levels”.  Here again, I feel that Stacey’s reaction to the language is obscuring the similarities.  For example, he himself talks at various times about the dynamics of polarization and the creation of “in-groups” and “out-groups”. Implicit in this is the everyday notion of a ‘boundary’ between the two; even if he never uses that term and he is talking about the patterning of psychological, emotional and behavioural responses.  I would also maintain that the same can be said in relation to the interplay of the “local” and “global”. We would both argue - I believe - that global (i.e. 'organization-wide') outcomes - such as formal designs of structures, strategies, procedures etc, and generalized patterns of thinking and acting - emerge from local (i.e. one-to-one and small-group) interactions. And also that these global designs and patterns impact, in a reflexive way, on the ongoing local interactions.  I have come to avoid using terms like “levels” to distinguish the local and global, in large part due to Stacey’s influence on my thinking.  However, in common-or-garden terms, “local” and “global” do signify different conceptual levels. And, to my mind, this can be done without having to embrace (or even make concessions to) a systems-thinking view of organizational dynamics.

Management systems v a systems-based view of organizational dynamics

Finally here, I believe that a similar argument can be made in relation to the use of the word “system” itself.  For example, John Seddon makes an excellent challenge to some of the absurdities in the way in which elements of the public sector have come to be managed.  He refers to his view as “systems thinking” (as in the title of his recent book). But he is talking there about the management systems (or systematized processes!) through which the work is organized and managed.  He is not using the phrase to refer to a multi-layer, systems-based view of organizational dynamics.  Nor, I believe, is Wenger.  To me, he is using the term in a much looser and less ‘philosophical’ way than Stacey infers. In other words, I do not believe that his talk of [management] systems is, of itself, incompatible with a process-based view of organizational dynamics.

__________

Other posts in the 'series':

#1 - Stacey's "Complex Responsive Processes" meets Wenger's "Communities of Practice"

Comments

[LaDonna]

Very thoughtful post that surfaced some thoughts and curiosities. I wonder at the mechanistic language of "levels" and if what we really mean is "orientation" (local, global)? And when it comes to management and control, from my perspective we're often better off considering interaction and influence rather than control and management -- control for the most part seems to me an illusion. Systems and processes hang together - Systems to me are the inter-related parts while the process is the connective tissue. Not being familiar with Ralph Stacey's work, how do you think these language distinctions play out?

[Chris Rodgers]

Hi LaDonna,

Many thanks for your comments. I’m glad that the post made sense to you and that it sparked some further thoughts. I very much agree with your dislike of mechanistic language in relation to the dynamics of organizations and also your perception of management control as an illusion.

Although the word “level” is used extensively in the everyday language of management (in a hierarchical sense) I agree that it does not help to convey what I see as the essence of organizational dynamics. It is a scalar metaphor, which implies a linear relationship between the “global” and the “local”. Secondly, it ‘positions’ these in different ‘places’, so to speak; with the local positioned within – and subordinate to – the global. And, finally, by casting both of these as ‘things’, it implies that the global has a ‘life of its own’ that is independent of local interaction. Your suggestion that these perspectives might more usefully be thought of as orientations is much more congruent with my view of the dynamics of organizations.

As regards “control”, I talk in Informal Coalitions about managers being both ‘in control’ and ‘not in control’ at the same time. By ‘in control’, I mean that they can take decisions and actions within their formal authority (that is, they have the right to decide to close a plant; issue a policy; change a rule; or whatever). But they are not in control – and can never be in control – of the ways in which people at large perceive, interpret, evaluate and act upon those decisions. Nor can they be in control of outcomes, since it’s from the interplay of this myriad of local decisions and actions that outcomes ultimately emerge. As you suggest, therefore, it’s the interactions that are critical; so seeking to influence the pattern and content of these interactions is one of the central dynamics that can be identified in all organizations. It is for this reason that I argue that those in leadership positions, throughout an organization need to actively engage with this local sensemaking and action-taking process.

I am less comfortable (from a complex social process view of organizations) with your final point. In it, you identify systems as the “inter-related parts” and processes as the “connective tissue”. From a systems thinking perspective, inter-related parts fit together to form a system. The primary unit of organization from that viewpoint is the “whole system”, with the parts being defined by, and subordinate to, the whole. This, from my (and Stacey’s) perspective, falls foul of the local-global points that I mentioned earlier – amongst others. Your connective tissue metaphor for the processes of organization also causes some difficulty, because it doesn’t – for me at least –sufficiently convey the dynamic and complex nature of what’s going on.

Ralph Stacey’s latest book, entitled Complexity and Organizational Reality, has just been published. This provides an up-to-date view of his thinking. It is broadly consistent with my own perspective, as set out in Informal Coalitions and this blog, although we differ on a few things ‘around the edges’. You can find out more about Stacey’s book here: http://www.routledge.com/books/Complexity-and-Organizational-Reality-isbn9780415556477

Regards, Chris

[Alice MacGillivray]

Those engaged in this topic might be interested in a book review I wrote recently about Digital Habitats (Wenger, Smith and White) and complexity. I don't reference Stacey in it, but it relates to this conversation.
http://boundaryspanner.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/digital-habitats-tech-stewardship/