Working With Complexity

7/26/2019 Working With Complexity

1/7

Working withcomplexity

Revisiting our assumptions about innovation and growth, Martyn Brown

tries to make sense of anxiety, myth and our lack of control in the modern

world and advocates a radical complexity perspective.

Martyn Brown is a

business director in

Ashridge Consul ting

working internationally

with innovative ways of

organising and leading.

Email: martyn.brown

@ashridge.org.uk

How do things actually work in organisations, and

how is this different from taken for granted and

deeply ingrained assumptions about how

organisations function? Years in consultancy,

executive education, and management and with a

business degree gave me thousands of slides and

countless ideas on how organisations should work.

Yet something was missing.

The starting point of this problem appears to be

our thinking and feelings about the issue of

control and trying to predict what should happen.

Paraphrasing from the work of Dr Phil Streatfield,

unusual in that he is both a senior line manager

and a past doctoral student in complexity, there is

a paradox of control . 1 Business leaders are

supposed to be in control.When unexpected events

occur, leaders have to have things under control.

Declaring that youre not in control is the worst

thing you can do.Top managers are constrained by what society

expects. Maintaining the appearance of being in

control of the s i tuation is important.

Organisations are expected to reflect some sort of

rationality in their actions. But, it is, I believe,

more than that. As we become more aware of the

retrospective rationalisations of what well

publicised companies are doing, and as business

leaders, academics, gurus and consultancies spew

forth more well polished, well presented and

plausible answers, we fe el th at we ha ve to do

something. We are driven to act.

Yet things never quite work out the way they are

planned. Unexpected things occur, some good and

some bad. If there is no absolute truth out there, if

we cannot predict the future, and things develop

and emerge in uncertain ways, how should we

think about organisational growth?

Organisation guru Henry Mintzberg refers to an

article in Fortune which claimed that Lou Gerstner,

since he joined IBM, had added $40 billion to the

companys share value. As Mintzberg put it: Wow.

All by himself . Thats pretty amazing. Its pretty

childish, in fact.

We seem to have an infantile belief in the cult of

leadership. The great white knight has to come in

and save everything. Many organisations are

obsessed with the importance of executive

bonuses, and the idea that there is only one

person in the organisation who can do things. And

wh en th ings go wron g we have a deep -s ea teddesire to heap all the responsibility on one person

the leader, who should be in control. The leader

takes all the praise and takes all the blame.

Leadership is an anxious rollercoaster ride. It

makes sense, therefore, to take stock and ask

whether there is a di fferent way of looking at

things.

The greatest anxiety of leader s and managers,

comes not just from the anxiety of not knowing,

and therefore in trying to control things, but in

facing issues of free will, which in turn, lead to

heightened anxiety. The more of themselves we ask

4

DIRECTIONSwww.ashridge.com/directions

The Ashridge Journal

Spring 2002Ashridge Business School UK - http://www.ashridge.org.uk


2/7

people to leave at the door, the less of themselves

they become and the more prescriptions they

require, as Peter Kostenbaum and Peter Block put

it in Freedom and Accountability at Work. We have tocome to terms with the reality of our institutions

mortality it wont go on forever it will lose its

vitality our work is a temporary structure. Talking

this way is often frowned upon.

Thi s is not surprising. Such obs ervations run

completely counter to our deeply ingrained beliefs

about organisations, how to lead them, how

innovation occurs and about their workings.

The search for growth through innovation

Number one on any corporate agenda, is the need

for top line growth. Under increasing shareholder

pressure, most CEOs are faced with the pressure for

revenue and share value growth. The days of

re-engineering, downsizing and trimming the fat

may not have gone completely, but there has been

much painful learning about the downsides of these

activities. And the net gain from acquisitions is not

always there. There is greater acceptance of the need

for top line growth through innovation, probably

through some sort of path-breaking activity.

Strategy guru Gary Hamel sees innovation as

critical to business success in the next 50 years as

the quali ty movement was in the last 50.

Companies should discard their business plans

and develop the capability for continual, radicalinnovation.2 Hamel knocks the idea of planning

being able to create something new, seeing strategy

as more subversive, rule breaking and revolutionary.

This revolutionary zeal is directed at freeing the

process from the tyranny of the past, whose

custodians are top managers. Change, he claims,

almost never starts at the top. The creativity comes

from new voices, new perspectives, new passions

and strategic conversations about the future.

At the heart of the search for innovation is a

potentially fatal paradox. While everyone wants

innovation, few will tolerate the ambiguity, the

uncertainty and the mess. We know that the ability

to innovate comes from skill in collaboration,

from the interaction of people in an open, highly

trusting way. We also know that innovation iscounter-intuitive to mainstream thinking; that it

cant be ordered into existence; that it cant be

managed hierarchically because it involves the

development of something new on the basis of

trusting interaction, and a lot of hard work; that

innovative activity does not sit comfortably with

the traditional ways of doing things; that over

channelling innovative activities can thwart,

minimise or constrain them; that there is no

guarantee anything wil l work; that i t needs

diversity, deviance and misunderstanding; that lots

of mistakes will be made before a workable new

idea emerges; that there is something about the

way things are done that is critical; and the how

remains elusive.

At the sa me time, the forces that aim to

maintain stability (e.g. planning, structuring and

controlling), tend to be counter to the forces that

innovation, initiative and experimentation require

which produce instability.

A common situation

The whole issue of vision, and strategic direction is

key. I was recently asked to facilitate a discussion,

for the executive of a major company. They wanted

help in agreeing on a durable vision for thecompany. On questioning this, it seemed to me

that the real reason for this was that managers

wanted greater clarity on the vision, and what was

to be expected from them.

The executives decided to mee t to cla rif y the

vision and inspiring goals were sought to motivate

and excite staff. Several executives had struck on

an article by a couple of US gurus that strongly

advocated this activity, based on the research

conducted for a best-selling book. The executive

team alone would do the work. This was not

intended to be exclusive or command and control,

5

DIRECTIONS www.ashridge.com/directions




3/7

but to help the process of clarification, motivation

and building understanding.

At first sight it is an extremely plausible model.

The authors of the best-seller are highly crediblewith strong business school links. Their long-term

research is based on some of the most successful

US companies. Lots of companies use, or have

been influenced by the model which is very clear

and prescriptive it tells you what you can do, to

produce a vision.

The vision model was accepted as a way to meet

the need. At no time was the assumption, about

whether vi sion was helpful, or eve n necessa ry,

seriously questioned.

Can you really build a vision and is it

important?

Certainly you can facilitate a discussion of an

executive team to produce such a statement. But

wil l it, if communicated in an appropriate way,

help to clarify the situation and remedy the

anxious feelings of staff?

This leaves companies with the question about

what a vision is all about. We know that we cannot

predict the future. We know that financial analysts

would prefer it if companies could. We know that

staff tell companies that if only we had greater

clarity of strategic direction/vision, they would

perform better. And they see managers as

incompetent if they dont offer such clarity.Whereas having an inspiring view (i.e. vision) of

the future, may well build a great enthusiasm for

achieving something greater than me, and which I

want to be involved in, it assumes that this will

be sufficient. Experience suggests that a much

more l ikely reaction ranges from apathy to

derision. Firstly, people tend to look at the quality

and substance of the vision statement, and are left

(in the main) with a feeling of its inadequacy.

They have done a poor job. Secondly, the vision

process is seen to be lacking lacking in

involvement, lacking in time and opportunity for

consideration of different ideas, angles and

perspectives.

In todays fast moving, complex and uncertain

world vision can be unhelpful. Vision can just bean extrapolation of past knowns, or can preclude

changes to it. The argument goes that if your world

is perfectly predictable then this is acceptable. If

the inference is that the future is predictable, then

it is logical to work back from the future, which

may restrict your range of possibilities and may

reduce your ability to respond to changes and

exploit new opportunistic opportunities along the

way. The expressed vision may ser ve to sil ence

your innovators those looking for new angles,

ideas and markets. The vision may also take no

account of emergence of opportunities.

Yet mainstream business thinking emphasises

the importance of vision. Its almost a creed.

Popular books, academics and consultants

continue to advocate its use.

The basi c proble m wi th vis ion is th at i t

reinforces dependency. It is a taken for granted

form of control which creates:

Dependency on:

what is right and wrong in this organisation

what the leader wants me to do, and not do

how I will be assessed, and therefore

remunerated, and promoted (or not)

the degree to which I can be myself, and use

my unique talents, without feeling I will be

punished for this.

If we look at Virgin, there seems to be no

assumption about what business the company

should or shouldnt be in. The culture is one of

why not, rather than why.

The tell them versus dont tell them dilemma is

central to all this. If you tell staff what to do, they

may either welcome it, or be sceptical. Often, you

6



Spring 2002


Ashridge Business School UK - http://www.ashridge.org.uk


4/7

may not actually want to tell them what to do, but

you feel it is important to clarify the general need,

and the expectations, on the basis of being

helpful, and aiding motivation.Not telling them involves understanding that if

people can wrestle with the problem, feel they have

ownership for it, do something about it, and maybe

deny the importance of top managers

encouraging/allowing them to do it then this is

vital for organisational growth and survival. In a

sense, and where it works best, it is near invisible,

and not subject to company edicts, strategies and

plans. Something that is vital for the organisation is

not under the control of the CEO or the top team.

False bravado and manufactured optimism

Whilst we know that exciting an organisation, by

whatever means, has huge advantages, it also has

big problems.

There is the danger of false bravado whereby the

organisation encourages manufactured optimism.

The dil emma of publi c celebration and private

realism is rarely discussed or understood. Private

thoughts are often held back as a defence against

failure, and against accusations of disloyalty.

Cultures of unreality can be created. If they are

fearful of the repercussions of speaking out it is

not surpris ing so many managers posit ion

themselves as can-do people. Reclaiming freedom

is a very important, yet vi tal activi ty forevery person.

Paraphrasing author Doug Griff in, the

assumption is that leaders are meant to set out a

vision, an idealised end-state for the organisation,

and then to empower people, that is , drive

leadership down through the hierarchy.3 Th is

allows others to share in a kind of mystical union.

The ethical and moral responsibility of individuals

is related to this mystical whole rather than to

the everyday contingencies of ordinary l i fe

in organisations.

Culture can become the overriding,

autonomous, harmonious whole to which good

people must conform. Individuals participate and

submit. Participation can mean letting go of self-interests and submerging oneself in the

transcendental whole. The selfish aspect is thought

to bring opposit ion and confl ict , whereas

participation in the whole leaves all conflict

behind. The danger is of mindless following, and

an idealisation of human behaviour. This can

divert attention from what people are actually

doing, and focus on some idealisation. It can also

drive out difference, deviation, and therefore the

likelihood of emergent novelty.

Towards the realities the unspokens of

organisations

At an organisational level:

we know we cant predict the future, but we

(in effect) continue to try to do so.

companies rarely move into the future as their

long-term plans describe.

the plans and other procedures simply mask

what were actually doing the messy process

of interaction and politics.

strategic plans are mainly defences against theanxiety of not quite knowing what were

doing.

if organisations dont move according to

plans, then they presumably move because of

the way people interact in groups.

At the level of individual managers:

people look to me/us, for leadership thats

what were/ theyre paid for.7





5/7

Im terrified Ill be found out as inadequate,

ineffective, as not up to job.

Im a leader; therefore I must inspire mypeople.

my people are anxious therefore I must

reduce their anxiety.

How do people really work understanding

complexity

The inf luence of the Santa Fe Institute (SFI)4 in

thinking about the emergent sciences of complexity

over many years has shifted our thinking toward how

things may work in organisations, rather than how

they are supposed to.

Scientists from many fields have been working

together to produce a body of thinking about

finding patterns in the apparently haphazard

phenomena in the universe (whether from the

physical, biological, economics or mathematical

wor ld) and trying to underst and how apparent

chaos has, in fact, patterns of unexpected order.

Central to the recent thinking of those interested

in studying complexity, has been the idea of

complex adaptive systems. Over recent years, the

genuine excitement of those researching, and

thinking about the implications of this work has

seen the rapid growth of attempts to apply it to the

world of organisations.Although far from mainstr eam thinking, the

conventional complexity perspective is that one

can describe the natural and physical world (of

garden ponds, termite colonies and the cosmos) in

terms of complex adaptive systems. The idea is

that complex adaptive systems consist of

independent but dynamically interacting agents

that create results that cannot be predicted by an

analysis of the cause and effect relationships. They

emerge, often in unexpected ways.

Given the power of this exciting and potentially

transforming research (a lot of it biological in

nature), there has been a natural human tendency

to apply it, metaphorically, to the world of

organisations. So many now describe organisations

not as machines (with all that that infers in terms ofleaders as mechanics, re-engineering, blueprints

etc), but as living systems or organisms. This has led

to great excitement, and the advocacy of different

approaches that are far from mainstream thinking

and assumptions. A plethora of books that attempt

to apply complexity thinking to organisations have

followed. Influential recent books by Meg Wheatley,

Arie de Geus, Richard Pascale, Peter Senge, and

others, have all to one degree or another through

closeness to the science, attempted to apply the

lessons to the world of organisations.

Most tend to talk about the new theories of

complexity, self-organisation and emergence by, in

the main, presenting existing views (e.g. in terms of

control, design, simple rules and regularity) in new

jargon with the danger of it becoming yet another

management fad. It is mainly a systems thinking

perspective.

In contrast, a few voices like Ralph Stacey,

Doug Griffin, Phil Streatfield and Patricia Shaw

take a more radical complexity approach.5They try

to relate these profound influences more directly

to the world of organisations, through the use of

organisational theory, relational psychology,

sociology and social constructionism. Whilst

noticing the dominance of systems thinking in

conventional complexity applications, they argue

for the inclusion of humans in our understandingof complex networks that, as leaders or

managers, we cannot stand outside them and

objectively observe or direct them. Rather than

describing organisations as complex adaptive

systems, metaphorically lifting from science, they

use the phrase complex responsive processes

of relating.

Towards the edge of chaos

The problem with describing an organisation as

8



Spring 2002




6/7

a system (rather than a process) is one of talking

about it as a thing. Organisations arent things,

let alone living things, they are processes of

communication and joint action. Thinking ofthe whole , outs ide the exper ience of local

interaction in the living present is a distraction

from what actually happens.

The core idea is that people are wo rking

together to create, and continuously recreate

what we cal l reality with no outside control. If

we believe in emergence and the possibility for

transformation to occur, then it is here in the

day-to-day, self-organising interaction of people,

that this possibility occurs.

Complexity thinking suggests that at the edge

of chaos a system can produce novel emergent

forms with critical rates of information flow,

connectivity of agents and diversity. But too

much can create overwhelming disorganisation.

Many conventional complexity writers see the

idea of edge of chaos as equated with crisis.

They see the manager as standing outside the

sys tem and pushing or nudging i t into

ins tabi l i ty, di s turbance and cr i s i s , put t ing

people under more stress so theyll be motivated

to change and thus unleash the power of self-

organisation.

The more radical perspective sees the edge of

chaos very differently. This emphasises the

dynamic of f ree- f lowing, spontaneous

conversation, not stuck in repetitive patterns

that block change. A heal thy organisat ioncons tant ly responds , so as to survive and

prosper.

Diversity of people, ideas and outlooks is a

key requirement for the potential novelty to

emerge. Innovative transformation requires non-

average, deviant , maverick , eccentr i c and

perhaps unpopular behaviour. This links back to

Hamel s ideas about new voices , new

perspectives, and new passions. It also links to

Cisco, where there are healthy numbers of

mavericks and non-conformists. As CEO John

Chambers puts it: Youve got to have mavericks

in Cisco. Youve got to have people who

challenge you. He adds that they also have to

be able to play on the team, l ikening his

managers to a f lock of wild ducks. I dont expect us to fly in formation. I just want us to

go south at the same time of the year, and when

its time to go north, to go north.

Accepting failure

Firms that are good accept a high failure rate, they

anticipate that failure is going to come and there

are certain things they dont do. They dont get

obsessed with blaming individuals and looking for

scapegoats. They dont use it as a reason to create a

culture of fear.

At Southwest Airlines, shortfal ls in performance

such as flight delays or slow turnarounds are seen

as team problems to be solved by team discussion,

action and ideas rather than scapegoating.

Southwest has the best on-time record and it turns

round planes faster than anyone elses.

People can only engage in this when the pattern

and quality of their relationships provides good

enough holding of the anxiety of facing the

unknown together. Too much crisis and stress

closes people and their relating properties down. It

needs to both safe enough and exciting enough,

without being terrifyingly stressful.

Strategy becomes the emergent process of

actively participating in the conversations aroundimportant emergent issues in a sense strategic

direction is understood in hindsight, with insights

into the patterning, rather than with foresight. Its

not step by step reasoning from assumptions

about the future, in some linear cause and effect

way, but in relying on using qualitative patterns to

reason by analogy and intuition.

Not only is the long-term future of the

organisation inherently unpredictable, but its

unknowable. Its not that its just difficult to

forecast accurately, its impossible to do so.9





7/7

The managers role seen differently

As Phil Streatf ield puts it: Managing really is an

endless task of engaging in new conversations andopportunities with al l the anxieties and

uncertainties that they bring.

The key argument is th e paradox of

simultaneously being in charge and not in control.

Ye t main st ream thinking sa ys that, surely,

someone must be in charge.

If mainstream thinking is that the movement of

an organisation into the future is the movement of

the whole system from the present to the future,

then the essential role of management is to

control this movement, to objectively observe it,

and analyse it rationally to be able to design it, or

act upon its leverage points. Variation from plan

will therefore result in some course correction.

Its misleading to equate management with

being in control, because this is only one pole in

the paradoxical experience of managing. The key is

courage not the heroic type, but the courage to

get involved in participatory creativity with others

in the construction of meaning, despite not being

in control the courage to live with paradox and

the anxiety generated by potential loss of meaning.

The key ski ll of management and leadership

therefore becomes the ski l l of participating

effectively with others in the processes in which

new meaning potentially emerges, and during

which the parti cipants may be potential ly

changed. The emergent pattern of evolution arisesin self-organising interactions and creates a sense

of meaning, order or control in the midst of

uncertainty and anxious feelings of not feeling in

control. The mainstream perspective would just

see this as incompetent. If youre in a mess, the

top team or someone, maybe you, must be

incompetent.

These anxieties produce a powerful force that

may inadvertently actually block change. From my

consulting experience some of the most powerful

interventions are when the spaces for the

interactive possibility are held, without the need

to over-structure it, define in advance key outputs

and deliverables and prescribe the models or key

inputs. Where the good enough holding of anxiety,

not the attempt to completely remove it gives thepotential for novelty, innovation or

transformation.

But the lack of a clear structure and desired

outputs can increase the sense of loss of control

which increases anxiety levels. Too much anxiety

can shut things down and lead to heated

accusations that youve lost control which in

turn lead to heightened anxiety. Too little inhibits

the search for new patterns, with insufficient

energy to create movement. We had an enjoyable

time but with hindsight things are about the

same. Good enough anxiety is therefore the

source of the energy that is inevitable as we try to

make sense of what is happening and our place

within i t. All this takes time, tenacity and courage.

The quality and depth of the strategic or other

conversations therefore appear to be a key factor

in the evolution of an organisation. It also sustains

a sense of organisation and individual identity.

Rather than looking for managers to be in

control, a key ability is to participate creatively in

the forming of transient meaning, enabling all

staff to continue living with the anxiety generated

by change. Working paradoxical ly with

simultaneous order and disorder, understanding

and misunderstanding, consensus and conflict. To

be both inspiring and humble at the same time.

Inspiring, not through brilliant foresight or vision,but through courageously offering a different

perspective of possibilities not certainties from the

perpetual construction of the future in the living

present. And doing a good enough holding of the

anxiety this produces. Humility through active

participative engagement, not knowing the

answers and accepting their own frailty in the face

of the expectations and projections of others about

being in control and all knowing. Accepting and

being comfortable with the reality that we might

be in charge but at the same time definitely not in

control.

10



Spring 2002


FURTHER READING

1. Streatfield, P. (2001).The

Paradox of Control in

Organizations, Routledge.

2. Hamel, G. (2000).

Leading the Revolution,

Harvard Business School

Press.

3. Griffin, D. (2002). The

Emergence of Leadership,

Routledge.

4. www.santafe.edu

5. Stacey, R. (2000).

Strategic Management &

Organisational Dynamics: The

Challenge of Complexity, 3rd

Edition, Financial

Times/Prentice Hall; Stacey

R, Griffin D and Shaw P.

(2000). Complexity and

Management: Fad or Radical

Challenge to Systems Thinking,

Routledge; Stacey, R.

(2001). Complex Responsive

Processes in Organisations,

Learning and Knowledge

Creation, Routledge.


Working With Complexity

Documents

Transcript of Working With Complexity