The following was first published as a series of posts on LinkedIn
1 Introduction
As Edward de Bono once put it, “You can’t dig a hole in a different place by digging the same hole deeper”. And we badly need to ‘dig a different hole’, when it comes to the way in which we understand how organization works – and what this means for life more generally. Most importantly, we need a perspective that foregrounds the real-world complexity of everyday human interaction, through which we are all perpetually creating the future together.
Instead, we continue to deepen the hole that we’ve been digging ourselves into for the past several decades, based on reality-denying assumptions of order, predictability and control. And we’re now using a super-fast ‘mechanical digger’ – in the form of so-called artificial ‘intelligence’ – to dig this same hole quicker and deeper still; fuelled by vast quantities of data that reflect what I have described elsewhere1 as “the suffocating grip of management orthodoxy”.
This reinforces still further the seductive myth that success is assured, provided that we do things ‘better’ and get them ‘right’, in line with the neatly packaged prescriptions and the elitist framing of roles and relationships that tends to accompany them. From this perspective, the notion of complexity is either ignored altogether or seen as an unwelcome aberration, which ‘proper management’ will cure. It won’t.
Taking complexity seriously is the very essence of leading and managing in the real world. The sooner we all ‘get out our spades’ and start to ‘dig this different hole’, the better.
2 Complexity as the natural state of human being
If we start from the standpoint that our aim is to achieve order, predictability and control, it naturally follows that complexity is bad. And that it needs to be reduced or, better still, eliminated. However, complexity is not something that can be got rid of, overcome, differentiated in some way from other aspects of human activity, or whatever else might be proposed. It is the natural state of human being. That is to say, whenever and wherever people are involved – and whatever the context – it’s complex.
This applies even when we are engaged in what might be considered to be a straightforward task or routine situation of one sort or another. Although this might call forward a well-established way of dealing with it, based on our own and/or others’ experience and expertise, we would still be immersed in the complex social process of relating with other people.
This is also the case when we are alone. The ongoing internal conversation that we have with ourselves is always conditioned by our relationships with other people. This includes specific others, as well as our generalized sense of what we imagine to be the perceptions and expectations of us that are held by people within our various formal and informal networks2. Alongside this, despite being unique individuals, we are inextricably inter-dependent beings3. That is to say, we are enabled and constrained, in everything we do, by the actions, inactions and interactions of other people.
To complete the picture, this process includes the past contributions of people that are reflected in physical artefacts – such as formal structures, systems, procedures, etc. – as well as folklore, rituals, routines and the like. These exist as ‘imprints’ of those past conversations in which they were originally conceived, adopted, adapted over time, and so on. As such, they continue to affect current perspectives, practices and performance, to the extent, and in the ways, that they are taken up by people in today’s interactions.
In sum, as human beings, we are always immersed in the complex social process of everyday human interaction. This is a PROCESS, in that we are dealing with a temporal phenomenon, which is boundaryless and in constant flux. It’s a SOCIAL process, since it involves people interacting together, moment to moment. And it’s a COMPLEX social process, as it is non-linear, self-organizing and emergent.
3 Talking organization into existence
Conversation (in the broadest sense of the word) is the fundamental means through which people participate, moment to moment, in the complex social process of everyday human interaction. Many of these conversations occur as part of the formal organizational arrangements. Most, though, take place informally; as people seek to make sense of what’s going on, understand the implications for themselves and others, build relationships, get things done, and so on. It’s important to recognize here, of course, that those at the Executive level engage in this process just as much as anyone else.
Crucially, conversation does not simply occur about organization, as an abstract commentary on a separate phenomenon; together, people talk organization (and the social world more generally) into existence. That is to say, organization is continuously being created, sustained and changed through the widespread interplay of these ‘local’ (i.e. small-group and one-to-one) conversations. And it’s the interpretations, questions and concerns, etc. that are organizing the informal, “shadow-side” conversations that have the biggest impact on what happens in practice. It’s here that people tend to coalesce informally around emerging themes that resonate with them – whether these support the formal agenda or run counter to it4.
This is a self-organizing, pattern-forming and pattern-using process. It results in a generalized tendency for people to think, feel and act in ways that become embodied and taken for granted over time. By providing a sense of order and ‘everyday predictability’, this is the principal dynamic that enables people to go on together within a particular relational context (the essence of organization). At the same time, it makes the emergence of new patterns of understanding and interaction less likely to occur. However, this generalized tendency for people to think and act in characteristic ways, in a given context, is always particularized in the moment of their interaction with others. As such, the patterning is continuously re-iterated over time; opening up the possibility – if not the likelihood – that significant shifts will occur spontaneously. Overall, this ongoing conversational process, together with the practices that emerge from it, tend to be shaped primarily by precedent (what has gone before and become taken for granted) rather than principle (what is supposed to happen according to the official ideology).
A final point for those in formal management positions (from CEO to the front line) to reflect upon, is that the vast majority of these conversations, which “talk organization into existence”, take place in-between formally established meetings, etc. – and without their being present.
4 The everyday ordinariness of complexity
Fundamental to the sought-after shift in people’s understanding of complexity in a social context, is acceptance of the ordinariness of the complex social process of interaction, within which we are all immersed and to which we are all contributing. Contrary to the idea that complexity is an extraordinary phenomenon, each one of us has life-long experience of dealing with it – whether well or otherwise. Whatever our circumstances, finding our way through the twists and turns of everyday life that this involves – at home, at work and in wider social settings – is what we have all been doing, for the whole of our lives. To put it another way, we are all walking case studies of these dynamics in action.
As in all things, some people do this better than others. And we all do it better on some occasions than we do at other times. In each particular circumstance, the prevailing power relationships (formal and, most particularly, informal) will influence how things play out. As will the patterning of interaction that is characteristic of each situation in which we are involved. Nevertheless, we each have no option but to muddle through the unavoidable ‘wiggliness’ of the world; arising from the self-organizing interplay of the formal and informal, structured and unstructured, power-related and political, etc. dynamics that are always ‘in play’. What each of us can do, though – whatever our circumstances – is to strive to do so with purpose, courage and skill.
Success depends primarily on the sense that we make of what’s going on; and on the practical ways that we apply pragmatically over time, to cope with the issues that we find ourselves facing. Amongst other things, this is about imaginatively making do with whatever ‘resources’ are available to us at the time, as we strive to act in ways that we judge to be useful in relation to each aspect of our lives. As well as having the courage to go on participating creatively, despite not knowing what will emerge from our own and everyone else’s interactions. And, whilst we have learned to behave in a variety of ways in different situations (for better or worse), and to carry on in what we hope are contingently useful ways, neither we nor anyone else is in control of what is emerging overall from the widespread interplay of these local, conversational interactions in which we are immersed.
And so, whilst the complicatedness of whatever we might find ourselves engaged in at any particular time might vary from ‘dead simple’ to impenetrably difficult, say – the ongoing process of organization is always and irreducibly complex. It is, though, the dynamics of interaction that are complex, not the explanation!
5 Revisiting self-organization and emergence
Too often, comments are made about organization and management practice - supposedly offered from a complexity perspective - that position self-organization and emergence as the opposite of so-called “command and control”. The resulting prescriptions then present these as superior design, development and delivery options to those top-down approaches that have come to dominate conventional management thinking and practice. The irony of doing so, though, is that this fails to take seriously the complex dynamics of organization that supposedly underpin the prescribed way forward. Most particularly, self-organization and emergence are not design options at all. Instead, they are natural dynamics of everyday human interaction; the process through which we are all perpetually creating the future together - in all of its manifestations. An approach to organization that seeks to enable self-management, say, is a choice. Self-organization just ‘is’.
This also means that what might be seen as a top-down, “command and control” approach to organization has itself emerged from – and is being sustained by – these same dynamics of self-organization and emergence. As are all other aspects of the particular social, temporal and situational context within which this is occurring. The same argument applies, of course, to organizational forms and practices that emphasize, say, empowered self-management. The ways in which these dynamics play out in practice will be starkly different in these two cases, of course. As they will be in every other ‘formulation’. But these diverse ways of doing, being and becoming are all emergent outcomes of the complex social process of everyday human interaction.
Failure to understand this basic point helps to sustain what I describe in “The Wiggly World of Organization” as “the suffocating grip of management orthodoxy”. We need to recognize, instead, that what we think of as “the organization” is both sustained and changed in the widespread interplay of people’s small-group and one-to-one interactions. It does not exist in any way ‘outside’ those interactions. This process is self-organizing and emergent. In other words, there is no-body (such as the manager) and no-thing (such as “the system”) sitting outside those interactions controlling what is going on. Crucially, though, it is precisely because of this self-organizing dynamic that people are able to go on together, and that social order emerges.
6 It’s now (or never)
At a conference in 1957, Peter Drucker said that decision-making is, “… essentially a time machine which synchronizes into one present a great number of divergent time-spans.”5. As he goes on to say, “Our approach today still tends towards the making of plans for something we will decide to do in the future. This may be a very entertaining exercise, but it is a futile one”. “The question”, he says, “…is not what we should do tomorrow. It is: what do we have to do today to be ready for an uncertain tomorrow?”
Drucker’s description of the approach to planning in 1957 would not be out of place today - some 65 years later! And his point about the need, instead, to focus on the ‘here and now’ is equally relevant to an understanding of organizational dynamics that takes complexity seriously.
Recognizing organization as continuously (re-)emerging in the complex social process of everyday human interaction presents a challenge to the taken-for-granted and common-sense notion that time is linear. That is, that it flows from the matter-of-fact past, through the transient present, towards a yet-to-be realized future. Instead, it embraces the notion of “the living present”6, in which the present itself has a time structure that embraces both the past and the future.
From this perspective, the past is not given. It is what we re-member – i.e. put together afresh, viewed from where we happen to be now. The future similarly exists in the present, in the form of our individual and collective hopes, fears, expectations and so on. This operates in a circular fashion; with what we expect affecting what we remember, and what we remember affecting what we expect. These both form the basis of our current thoughts and actions, which can only take place in the detail of the interactions that we are having now.
And so, when relating this to aspects of organization and management practice concerned with the future (such as strategy and planning), the emphasis shifts from one of making choices in and about the future, to focusing on the quality of our participation in the self-organizing conversations from which these choices, and the reactions to them, are emerging in the present.
7 Power, politics and partiality
Contrary to conventional management wisdom, the dynamics of power, politics and partiality (bias) are ever-present – and essential – aspects of organization.
Power: All interactions are power-related, with power relations shifting dynamically, according to people’s individual and collective understanding, needs and wants, and the relative abilities of those involved to address them. Those formally ‘in charge’, in a particular setting, from CEO to the front line, are relatively powerful participants in this process, and they often have ‘first mover’ advantage. But, despite this, neither they nor anyone else can control what emerges overall.
Politics: Everything that happens - ‘good’ as well as ‘bad’ - is a result of political action. This involves the continual playing out of the similarities and differences that exist within and between people, in the specific circumstances and relationships within which they are interacting. It involves the coming together of people's differing interests, intentions, interpretations, ideologies, identities, idiosyncrasies, and so on; as well as being affected by their in-the-moment emotions, multi-directed energies, levels of engagement, etc. Such differences are continually played out through a range of collaborative-competitive dynamics, reflected in a constantly shifting mix of co-operative, calculative, coercive and collusive, etc. behaviours. Informal coalitional activity is at the core of the political dynamic, both organizing shadow-side conversations and, at the same time, being organized by them.
Partiality: interactions are always ‘incomplete’, in the sense that these can never encompass the full extent of information, ideas, insights, interpretations, etc. that are potentially available within a given population. They are also inherently biased, in the sense that the patterning dynamic mentioned earlier means that what happens is always prejudiced – in the literal sense of being pre-judged. The tendency is for us to follow, without conscious awareness or intent, the characteristic patterning of thought, feeling and action that has gone before. It is this self-organizing patterning process that enables people to go on together, which is the essence of organization. At the same time, this carries with it the risk that patterns of behaviour might emerge, and become taken for granted, which result in unjustifiable discrimination against particular individuals, groups and ideas, etc. Paying attention to this collective patterning of behaviour is therefore crucial to any attempts to address issues of diversity and inclusion.
8 Change emerging from the shadows
According to conventional wisdom, change is brought about through formal, rational analysis of ‘the facts’ and step-by-step decision-making by people whose agendas are fully aligned. . Taking complexity seriously exposes this as a fiction. Outcomes arise instead from informal interactions, joint sense-making and political accommodations, made by people who are immersed in the complex social process of everyday organizational life.
So, what is actually going on? In the process of carrying out their formal roles, and intimately intertwined with this, people interact informally to address perceived problems, deal with emerging issues, exchange gossip, advance their own agenda, and so on. These “shadow-side” conversations are occurring all of the time, and at all ‘levels’.
‘Themes’ emerge from this process which tend to organize people’s participation, and around which they begin to coalesce. When a sufficiently strong coalition of support forms around a particular theme, this might be raised as a formal proposition. If so, and following its adoption as policy, the sought-after changes are set out formally; typically to be implemented through a mix of ‘rational’ change modes, ranging from ‘tight’ (imposed, directed and programmed) to ‘loose’ (involving, facilitated and ad hoc).
Throughout this process, people ‘in the know’ use their informal, socio-political networks to reinforce their favoured aspects and/or to stymie or modify less favourable elements of the official plans. Informal coalitions (re-)emerge spontaneously, to support, frustrate or reshape the proposed changes – and/or to seek to initiate further shifts in policy or practice. Conversations generated within and between the new coalitions, and with ‘new recruits’ trigger a repeat of the cycle. And so on…. and so on…
By ignoring these hidden, messy and informal dynamics of organization, most formal change programmes inevitably contain the seeds of their own downfall. Adopting an Informal Coalitions approach is about working with these complex social dynamics; seeking to build active coalitions of support for change, by working to shift the content and patterning of current conversations in ways that move things forward in line with the sought-after direction of travel. It’s the ‘little things’ – what’s actually happening day-in-day-out, and how people are making sense of, and responding to, these – that are most critical in this. And this means that leading change is primarily a ‘contact sport’, not an arms-length, intellectual exercise.
9 Leading as an emergent property of everyday human interaction
If we are to take complexity seriously, we need to debunk the myth that leadership is an elite practice, which is limited to a relatively few, gifted, and formally appointed, individuals. We need to understand instead that acts of leadership emerge - and are recognized as such - in the everyday process of communicative interaction between people; ‘punctuation marks’ in the ongoing conversation of organization, through which people are perpetually creating the future together.
This is the case whether these flow from the role expectations that are placed on those in formal management positions (from CEO to the front line); or if they arise from the actions of other participant(s), who behave in ways that cause others to ‘follow their lead’. In all cases, though, it is those ‘on the receiving end’ of formal and informal ‘interventions’ who determine if, and to what extent, these constitute acts of leadership. And, if so, how they will respond.
This is not about the advocacy of some form of “distributed leadership” as a design choice. It simply recognizes the capacity for acts of leadership to arise from informal interactions that take place at any time, any place and involve anybody. Rather than leadership being seen as a rational, scientific endeavour, subject to a specific set of practices and procedures, it is a natural dynamic of the complex social process of everyday interaction. It occurs as we make sense of what’s going on and communicate this in such a way that leads others to see things differently and/or to act differently.
As a final point on this, leadership and management are intimately interwoven; “two sides of the same coin”, as Kevin Flinn puts it7. In a particular context, this applies whether we happen to be responsible for managing a large group of people or just our own contribution. Either way, we have to cope, moment-to-moment, with whatever is emerging (‘managing’ as part of our muddling through); including dealing with the intended and unintended consequences arising from any acts of leadership that we might have been party to (‘leading’ as part of our muddling through). And, since the sense-making that sparks a particular leadership ‘intervention’ is rooted in our ongoing coping with the current context, these are indeed two sides of the same coin.
10 For managers, the conversations are the work.
The conventional approach to organizational communication is built around top-down message passing, aimed at “getting the right facts, to the right people, at the right time.” However, communication is a relational practice. And so, whilst formal, structured approaches might provide people with some relevant information, these communicate nothing. Instead, they act as a further input to the network of informal conversations, through which people make sense of what’s going on and decide how they will respond.
It’s here, in the give-and-take of ordinary, everyday conversations, that real communication happens. It is the perspectives that are co-created in these which shape people’s ongoing participation. Crucially, too, as described earlier, conversation does not simply occur about organization; together, people talk organization into existence. That is to say, organization is continuously created, sustained and changed through the widespread interplay of people’s conversations. And, as the content and patterning of these conversations change, so does organization – whether or not in the ways intended by those who are formally in charge.
Taking complexity seriously, therefore, requires those in formal management roles (from CEO to the front line) to reframe their view of what communication is all about. In particular, it means their seeing the real challenge as one of influencing the everyday conversations through which people are continually making sense of what’s going on and deciding how they will act. A particular challenge here is that, as mentioned earlier, the manager is not physically present when the vast majority of these are taking place.
First, this means tuning-in to, and actively engaging with, those themes around which people are informally coalescing and which are organizing their everyday interactions. Secondly, tapping into key elements of the informal conversational networks, through which people are making sense of what’s going on and deciding how to act; seeking, where necessary, to influence the patterning and content of those interactions (including, where relevant, their own!) in organizationally beneficial ways. Thirdly, as they go about their day-to-day activities, paying attention to their own words and actions; recognizing that everything that they say and do - as well as everything that they don’t say and don’t do - ‘sends messages’ to people about what’s important, how they should act, and so on. Here again, though, it’s those who observe their words and actions, not the managers themselves, who decide what these mean; doing so in the course of their conversations with others.
For managers, then, ‘talk’ is their most important action ‘tool’. Or, to put it another way, the conversations are the work.
11 Muddling through with purpose
We are all inextricably immersed within, and contributing to, the real-world wiggliness of everyday life – both in an organizational context (where relevant) and more generally. Given our inability to predict and control what will emerge from this, the obvious question is “So, what do I do?”.
The first thing to say is that we have no option but to muddle through this complex social reality; as we act forwards, moment to moment, into a continuously emerging and unknowable future. This is a future that we are perpetually creating together, through the interplay of our own and everyone else’s ongoing (inter)actions. Given this inescapable reality, the challenge then is to strive to do so with purpose, courage and skill8.
As regards our muddling through with purpose, there are four, complementary aspects of this that are central to the notion of doing this ‘well’. As summarized below, these are: acting with a sense of purpose; acting on purpose; acting purposefully; and acting purposively.
Acting with a sense of purpose is, first and foremost, about pursuing a broad direction of travel rather than fixating on a specified-in-detail future state. It is about becoming so immersed in the Whys, Whats and Hows of our practice, that we are better placed to deal with whatever emerges – rather that with what might have emerged, if the ‘real world’ had been kind enough to comply with the planning assumptions. For managers, this is also about their working to enable others to perform with purpose, courage and skill; given that – despite the conventional rhetoric – it is impossible for them to control what is emerging overall.
Muddling through on purpose is about acting deliberately, with awareness and intent. That is to say, muddling through is not about proceeding aimlessly and oblivious to what’s going on. Or leaving things to chance. It is the antithesis of this.
Muddling through purposefully is about acting forwards, moment to moment, with determination and resolve. Being resolute and determined to deal with whatever turns up. The emphasis is on the word “through”.
Finally, and most pertinently in the context of the inherent wiggliness of organization, is the need to act purposively. That is to say, participating in contingently useful ways, in the ongoing process through which organization is being continuously (re-)enacted and outcomes are emerging. This means doing whatever is necessary, at that time and in those circumstances, rather than acting formulaically and in strict accordance with some preordained policy, plan or procedure.
12 Muddling through with courage
We all have a sense of ‘everyday predictability’, arising from the self-organizing patterning of interaction, in a given context, that becomes taken for granted over time. Despite this, we still have to cope with the underlying state of ‘not knowing’, arising from the complex social dynamics (”wiggliness”) of organization.
Acknowledging this openly can be particularly challenging for managers (from CEO to the front line), given the deeply ingrained mantra that if you’re not in control, you’re not leading. This further reinforces an idealized and unrealistic representation of the interwoven tasks of managing and leading, which bears little relationship to everyday reality. For some, this ever-present tension, between what is supposed to be happening and their real-world experience, is anxiety-inducing; seemingly calling into question their competence and professionalism.
Not unnaturally, then, there is pressure for them to collude with the illusion of order, predictability and control, by following mainstream prescriptions and accounting for their real-world practice of muddling through in ways which are managerially ‘correct’ (i.e. which match the established narrative), and which are politically acceptable within the prevailing context. In reality, many of these formal trappings of organization act more as containers of anxiety than as ways of ensuring particular performance outcomes. As such, the requirements that these seek to impose, coupled with the need for managers to meet the control-based role expectations that flow from them, adds further to the wiggliness in which they are immersed and through which they are seeking to find their way.
The challenge for managers then becomes one of how they might enable people to move forward in ways that are both organizationally beneficial and personally resonant. Besides doing so with purpose, they need to have the courage to confront unrealistic expectations when it makes sense to do so, and to work through their own and others’ inevitable anxieties, despite having no certainty as to what will emerge. In particular, this means having the courage to use everyday conversation as their primary action ‘tool’; challenging the generally accepted ‘truths’ of management orthodoxy; and becoming aware of the collective expression of their own and others’ biases that are serving to reinforce any unhelpful patterns.
To paraphrase Ralph Stacey on this, the challenge is one of having the courage to go on participating creatively despite not knowing. And, in the words of the poet, John Keats, “… being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.”
13 Muddling through with skill
To complete this post, I suggest that muddling through skilfully blends together four, complementary aspects of skilful practice.9.
First, muddling through skilfully is about adopting an orientation to practice, which deals in parallel with the open, structured and formal elements of organization alongside the hidden, messy and informal dynamics of everyday human interaction. I call this “parallel practice”, which emphasizes the intimately intertwined, ‘both-and-at-the-same-time’ nature of the response required. It rejects the arrogance and rigidity of one-size-fits-all ‘solutions’; the simplistic nature of either-or thinking; the tendency to dismiss the shadow-side dynamics of organization, and so on.
Secondly, it’s by engaging with the practical reality of people’s ongoing interactions – both formal and informal - that managers can strive to make a difference. Seeking to shift their own and others’ practice in ways that they judge to be both organizationally beneficial and ethically sound. To facilitate this, there are a number of specific, complexity-congruent capabilities that are core to this, namely: using their practical judgement; reframing communication towards joint sense-making and relationship building; thinking culturally; acting politically; embracing paradox; and practising reflexively.
Thirdly, muddling through skilfully requires a general way of operating that is enabled by the above capabilities, informed by relevant theory and applied pragmatically in the moment. This calls on managers to adopt the mode of operation of the bricoleur. In essence, this means imaginatively making do with whatever is available in the moment; using these as improvisational ‘props’, rather than procedural straitjackets. .
And fourthly, muddling through skilfully is about developing and deploying a personally resonant and lightly held practice theory; comprising practical ‘rules of thumb’ that they have found to be both practical and beneficial in finding their way through the complex social dynamics of organizational life. As always, what matter most are the real-world conversations that flow from the use of such approaches, and the ideas and responses that these evoke.
In taking complexity seriously, one of the most important advances that managers can make is to become consciously aware of what they already know instinctively. That is, that the seemingly disjointed and fragmentary nature of their day-to-day inter(actions) - what I’m calling "muddling through" - is not a sign of dysfunction or substandard performance. On the contrary, it is the very essence of their role. And that doing this with purpose, courage and skill is the very best that they – or anyone else - can do.
________________
1 Chris Rodgers (2021) The Wiggly World of Organization. Routledge.
2 The Pragmatist, George Herbert Mead, referred to this as “the generalized other” (Mind, Self and Society).
3 The Sociologist, Norbert Elias, makes the point that individuals are the singular, and groups the plural, of interdependent people.
4 Chris Rodgers (2007) Informal Coalitions. Palgrave Macmillan
5 Peter Drucker (1970) Technology, Management and Society. Originally, Harper and Row
6 Doug Griffin (2001) The Emergence of Leadership. Routledge
7 Kevin Flinn (2018) Leadership Development: A Complexity Approach. Routledge
8 The Wiggly World of Organization (ibid).
9 The Wiggly World of Organization (ibid)
Comments