chaos and complexity theory in management: an exploration from a critical systems thinking...

SystemsResearchandBehavioralScienceSyst. Res.20, 387^400 (2003)DOI:10.1002/sres.566

& ResearchPaper

Chaos and Complexity Theory inManagement: An Exploration from aCritical Systems Thinking Perspective

Maria Carolina Ortegon-Monroy*

Lumnifinance, Bogota, Colombia, South America

This paper presents the theoretical and practical findings emerging from an exploratorystudy of Chaos and Complexity Theory (C&CT) as an alternative approach to propitiatenew understandings about the nature of management in organizations. They show thatC&CT is not theoretically coherent enough to be applied in practice. Copyright # 2003John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords Chaos and Complexity Theory; incoherencies; implications; claims; value-adding anddifficult-to-embrace points

INTRODUCTION

The study involved a theoretical and a practicalpart. The theoretical exploration was conductedfrom a Critical Systems Thinking (CST) perspec-tive. It involved a theoretical inquiry particularlyof Stacey’s account of Chaos and ComplexityTheory (C&CT), presented in Complexity andCreativity in Organizations. This is presentlyconsidered to be one of the fullest and probablymost widely read management accounts on thesubject (Rosenhead, 1998). Jackson’s (1991) frame-work of CST, used to interrogate systemsapproaches, constituted the selected approach toconduct this theoretical exploration. From thistheoretical exploration a series of findings wereproduced. They reveal incoherencies, which werefurther explored through the findings emerging

from exploration at the practical level. Thepractical exploration was conducted in the Hum-berside Training and Enterprise Council (Hum-berside TEC), which introduced C&CT ideas aspart of its process of becoming a learning organi-zation. The focus of this practical exploration wasthe first self-managed team of consultants belong-ing to the Investors in People Directorate.

The paper thus involves a critique, character-ized by a discussion about the theoretical inco-herencies of C&CT and their implications inpractice; a discussion about Stacey’s claims formanagement; and a reconsideration of the value-adding and difficult-to-embrace points attri-buted to this approach, in order to determinewhat this approach can deliver in practice. Thetheoretical incoherencies demonstrated in prac-tice are: questioning the technical interest whileseeking to determine regularities in behaviour;considering control as an illusion but acceptingregulation of behaviour to propitiate conditionsfor mutual understanding; considering changes

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

* Correspondence to: Dr. Maria Carolina Ortegon-Monroy, Lumnifi-nance, Country Manager, Carrera 11A No. 119-16, Bogota, Colombia,South America. E-mail: [email protected]

in schemas as liberating but being enslaved toone schema; the pervasiveness of a dominantschema versus the view of change in organiza-tions as a dynamic of changes in schemas;considering complex–pluralist contexts as nor-mal but making unitary assumptions in terms ofintervening; and encouraging a structuralistapproach for intervening while advocating asocial constructivist view.

The first section presents the general researchapproach used to conduct this study. The secondsection introduces and comments on the theore-tical incoherencies, their manifestation in prac-tice and their implications. The third sectionintroduces Stacey’s (1996) claims and discussesthem in the light of their implications formanagement practice from a CST perspective.The fourth section presents a reconsideration ofthe value-adding and difficult-to-embrace pointsattributed to C&CT. The fifth and final sectionconcludes the contribution of C&CT to manage-ment and suggests ways forward.

GENERAL METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

The exploration involved a theoretical inquiryinto Chaos and Complexity Theory, producing aseries of findings serving as platforms to examinethe findings emerging from the exploration at thepractical level. Jackson’s (1991) framework tointerrogate systems approaches constitutes theselected approach to conduct the exploration atthe theoretical level.

At the practical level, the exploration con-ducted in the Humberside Training and Enter-prise Council (H-TEC) produced a series offindings generated from processes of in-depthinterviewing (Taylor and Bodgan, 1984) devel-oped to carry out the field study. The role of thispart of the study was to determine if the practicalfindings confirmed the theoretical findings. Infact, as the study progressed, the theoretical andpractical explorations evolved on an ongoingbasis, informing each other.

The model of the research became the cyclicprocess described in Figure 1. A frameworkdeveloped by Jackson (1991) to interrogatesystems methodologies is used to develop the

critique. This framework consists of an examina-tion of systems approaches at a number of levels:(1) Habermas’s theory of human cognitive inter-ests (1972, 1974); (2) Burrell and Morgan’ssociological paradigms (1979); (3) Morgan’smetaphors of organization (1986); and (4)Jackson and Keys’ System of Systems Methodol-ogies (1984). In the case of the present study, thisframework is used to interrogate Stacey’s versionof C&CT. These outcomes are used to inform thepractical exploration.

At a practical level this exploration wasconducted in the Investors in People directorateof the H-TEC, concretely the first self-managedteam of consultants belonging to this area. Theresearcher was invited by the Managing Directorof the organization to conduct her research in thisarea of the organization.

The situation of the team was explored alongwhatever path it took through a period of twoyears. The aim was to inquire about the use ofC&CT ideas. The study focused on determiningindividuals’ perceptions and experiences asrelated to the particular approach adopted bythe Managing Director and the Human ResourcesTeam to introduce and operationalize C&CT; thatis, the ‘framework of organizational designprinciples’ (FODP; see Storr, 1997). Qualitative,informal, in-depth interviewing (Taylor andBodgan, 1984) (‘exploratory dialogues’) was themethodology applied to investigate this area ofinterest. The findings emerging from theseprocesses constituted a series of recurrent themesthat reflected the common understandings andexperiences of the self-managed team membersabout their use of C&CT. They were used to testthe theoretical findings, a series of theoreticalincoherencies, as discussed below.

THEORETICAL INCOHERENCIES ANDTHEIR MANIFESTATION IN PRACTICE

This section demonstrates how the theoreticalincoherencies of C&CT come to the fore andaffect practice. Each subsection introduces oneincoherence, discusses it in terms of the under-lying assumptions made in the approach used toincorporate these ideas in the Humberside TEC,

RESEARCH PAPER Syst. Res.

Copyright � 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Syst. Res. 20, 387^400 (2003)

388 Maria Carolina Ortego¤ n-Monroy

presents these incoherencies as experienced bythe self-managed team members, and commentsabout their implications. It is to be highlightedthat in view of the fact that the incoherenciesreflecting deficiencies in the theory were foundin the underlying assumptions of the approachused to incorporate the ideas in the organization,it is discounted that they could be misapplica-tions or misinterpretations in practice.

Abandoning the Technical Interest WithoutDoing So: A Pretension

The theoretical incoherence discussed here isthat the view supporting the descriptions of theC&CT approach demands abandoning the tech-nical interest while the view supporting the

intervention encourages determining regularitiesin behaviour to identify underlying structuresthat account for learning to occur and thusaccomplish the central management task of‘driving the organization to the edge of chaos’(Stacey, 1996) or ‘nudging systems into desiredtrajectories’ (Morgan, 1986).

The above incoherence was effectively experi-enced by the MD of the H-TEC as a dilemma:‘How to remove command and control withoutusing command and control?’ This situation waspresent at the level of the self-managed team byacknowledging the ownership of the process ofincorporation of these ideas to the MD, but at thesame time experiencing a modus operandiin which they were free to start their owninitiatives and flexibly design their tasks, thatis, self-organize.

Figure 1. Research model using the framework of Checkland and Holwell (1998)

Syst. Res. RESEARCH PAPER


Chaos and ComplexityTheory in Management 389

Thus the pretension of abandoning the techni-cal interest is not realized within this approach;managers are faced with the tension between theneed for control and allowing self-organization.At the level of the self-managed team this falsepretension generated lack of trust and ownershipof the process of incorporation of these ideas.Clearly, the approach contemplates other moresubtle forms of pursuing the technical interest,indicating that it is by no means abandoned.

Making the Practical Interest Technical:A Fallacy

The theoretical incoherence discussed here isthat the view supporting the descriptions of theC&CT approach assumes that no one can be incontrol but the view supporting interventionaccepts the regulation of behaviour to propitiateconditions for mutual understanding and learn-ing to take place in the organization.

The above was evidenced in the approach usedat the H-TEC as a whole by promoting the orga-nization as a self-organizing system and control isdispersed throughout the organization to the ex-tent that strategy is an emergent phenomenon, butaiming at regulating behaviour authoritativelythrough the FODP to build a learning culture inorder to reach a better fit with the environment.

At the level of the self-managed team thisincoherence was present through the MD’smanagement style promoting the assumptionthat ‘control is only an illusion’ but imposingtheir modus operandi, and directly and arbitra-rily attempting to influence and control theculture and their learning process. As a conse-quence, a counter-culture of individualism pre-dominated within the self-managed team, whichdid not feel very identified at all with the processof incorporation of these ideas.

The approach used at the H-TEC to incorpo-rate C&CT ideas shows that pursuit of thepractical interest (learning) is subservient totechnical purposes (adapting to the environ-ment), confirming the fallacy of the C&CTapproach in portraying the practical interest aspredominant when it is the technical interest thatis most favoured.

Making the Emancipatory Interest Technical:Instrumentalizing Learning

The theoretical incoherence discussed here isthat the view supporting the descriptions of theC&CT approach considers changes in schemas(double loop learning) as liberating but the viewsupporting the intervention is enslaved to oneschema or mindset: operating far from equili-brium and co-evolving with the forces of themarket.

The above was evidenced in the approachused at the H-TEC, incorporating C&CT as awhole on the one hand, by emphasizing that akey feature of a complex evolving system is itscapacity for both single and double loop learn-ing. Individuals were thus seen as being self-responsible for processes of changes of schema totake place in the organization. But on the otherhand, by accentuating the view of organizationsas complex evolving systems where learning iscentral to build the capacity to deal with theunknown and co-evolve in a deforming land-scape, confirming that responding to the forces ofthe market is more important than emancipation.

At the level of the self-managed team thisincoherence was experienced as a freedom todesign their job and develop initiatives that wasseverely constrained by a structure and a seriesof controls that rendered them powerless. Thisreconfirms the predominant schema operating inthe organization.

This reveals that learning, contemplated aschanges in schemas, was seen predominantly asinstrumental, and not as emancipatory within anapproach where adapting to the environment ismore important, and not emancipation in anynormal sense of the word.

Making One Schema Pervade: Using Its OwnTools to Remove It

The theoretical incoherence discussed here isthat the view supporting intervention in theC&CT approach is based on the pervasiveness ofa dominant schema (learning, cybernetic, mec-hanistic), while the view supporting the descrip-tions is based on understanding change in




organizations as a dynamic of changes inschemas.

The above was evidenced in the approachpropitiated in the H-TEC by contemplating thatthe organization can adapt its behaviour torespond to its environment and it can alsochange its schema or the rules by which itoperates; but at the same time favouring thelearning organization view, which underpinnedand embraced the whole approach.

At the level of the self-managed team this wasexperienced through a management style thatpromoted ‘thinking out of the box’ and ‘beingcomfortable with the uncomfortable’ but at thesame time using a command and control systemto make them part of this process of becoming alearning organization. The schema throughwhich change became operative was the com-mand and control one, determining its predomi-nance for self-managed team members.

The above suggests that using mechanistictools to remove a mechanistic approach justmakes it more pervasive. The C&CT approachencourages managers to influence control para-meters to propitiate the conditions for learningand creativity and innovation to take place. Thisis an indication that in spite of contemplating theeventual dominance of any view, mechanisticviews to management are predominant. DespiteStacey’s claims to the contrary this approach istrapped in this one view. This considerablyhinders the adoption of pluralist perspectivesand the propitiation of double loop learning.

Unitary Assumption Behind Propitiatinga Pluralist Context

The theoretical incoherence discussed here isthat the view supporting the descriptions in theC&CT approach considers complex–pluralistcontexts as normal, and as the contexts to bepropitiated but the view supporting interventionmakes complex unitary assumptions.

The above was evidenced in the approachemployed at the H-TEC as a whole through itspredominant command and control orientationused to incorporate these ideas in this organiza-tion, while at the same time presupposing the

view of the organization as a learning system. Atthe level of the self-managed team this wasexperienced as a sudden imposition of theirpresent modus operandi while at the same timeencouraging learning and self-responsibility.

Instead of propitiating a pluralist (edge ofchaos) context in the pursuit of creativity andinnovation, the tension generated has resulted inthe enforcement of a context where unitary,mechanistic assumptions were being made; self-managed team members complied with it in thepursuit of improving self-performance.

The C&CT approach apparently seems toindicate that it is not a ‘problem-solving’approach but a ‘context-propitiating’ one. How-ever, on propitiating a pluralist context, unitaryassumptions are made (the end is to drive theorganization to the edge of chaos by means ofmanipulating control parameters). The approachseems to overlook that propitiating a pluralistcontext involves making a unitary assumption.

The Structuralist Project Behind the SocialConstructivist View: TheoreticalUnreflectiveness

The theoretical incoherence discussed here isthat the C&CT approach adopts a structuralistview from which it is expected that managersembark on the instauration of a social construc-tivist view, which conforms to its descriptionsabout organizations and change.

The above was evidenced in the approachused to incorporate these ideas in the H-TECthrough the propitiation of the edge of chaos asan ideal context for learning in which membersof the organization could become engaged in‘working with multiple realities’, while at thesame time introducing the FODP to establish infamiliar terms the underlying conditions forlearning and innovation to occur in the organiza-tion for their utilization.

At the level of the self-managed team thisincoherence was present as the influence of theMD in identifying underlying patterns and thusin propitiating the conditions and supportivestructures for learning to take place within theteam; but at the same time being faced with a




situation in which they had to co-construct theirnew ‘environment’ through their own initiativesand definition of their own roles. However,meeting targets became central and determinedthe approach to managing their new situation.

The above indicates that the structuralistproject of building a social constructivist viewis flawed with theoretical unreflectiveness(Jackson, 2000). In theory the C&CT approachunreflectively makes use of two currents ofthought, which generates a lot of tension andrenders the approach self-contradictory. We seea lot of tension between the voluntaristic ideassupporting the social–constructivist view under-lying these descriptions, whereby individualsplay an active role in ‘constructing’ themselvesand their own world through their interactions(they can realize new schemas or worldviews);and deterministic explanations (human systemsexposing the properties of complex evolvingsystems) indicating how to influence the under-lying structures or systems of relationships(control parameters) that generate surface phe-nomena, as defined by the structuralist approachto intervening.

In practice the above discussion inevitablyleads to reflection on the need of generatingcritical awareness about the different organiza-tional approaches within the spirit of ‘pluralism’as in Jackson (1991, 1999, 2000). Indeed when anorganization is anchored in one paradigm, which‘specifies what types of entities exist, what formsof access [members] have to them, how [mem-bers] should generate knowledge, and how[members] might thereby act’ (Mingers andGill, 1997, p. 243), unreflectively introducingapproaches reflecting other paradigms becomescounterproductive. The experience of the self-managed team seems to confirm this. Table 1synthesizes the incoherencies presented in thissection.

STACEY’S CLAIMS FOR MANAGEMENTPRACTICE

This section examines Stacey’s claims about theC&CT approach and their implications formanagement practice from a critical systems

thinking perspective. It presents a discussionabout the attainment of each claim in the light ofthe theoretical and practical explorations con-ducted. This informs about the possibilities andlimitations of this approach in management.

C&CT as a More Comprehensive and UsefulFramework for Organizational Self-Reflection

C&CT is ‘a more comprehensive and more usefulway of making sense of what managers alreadydo. In other words it is a useful frameworkfor organizational self-reflection’ (Stacey, 1996,p. 272). From a CST perspective this claim couldbe interpreted as: C&CT is a more comprehen-sive and useful perspective to reflect aboutorganizations.

There is implicit a claim of self-sufficiency inthe way this claim is stated. With this claimStacey clearly seems to adopt an isolationistposition, according to which, ‘there is nothing tolearn from other perspectives, which appear notto be useful or perhaps, even sensible’ (Jackson,1999, p. 13). Moreover, this position counteractsthe possibility of ‘organizational self-reflection’(on which the claim of this approach as beingmore useful relies) because it precisely fore-stalls the possibility of ‘reflective conversation’between different strands. This is a strong reasonwhy isolationism as a developmental strategyin the management sciences was dismissed(Jackson, 1999).

However, the examination of this theoryinclines us to identify Stacey’s approach withmore of an imperialist position, which ‘repre-sents a fundamental commitment to one theore-tical position but a willingness to incorporateother strands of management science if theyseem to be useful and add strength in terms ofthe favoured position’ (Jackson, 1999, p. 13).Although the theoretical position adopted by thisapproach appears not to be clear to Stacey, hedescribes his approach as ‘an overall frameworkfor pulling together many existing buildingblocks in the literature on management andorganization’ (Stacey, 1996, p. 281).

The theoretical position adopted by thisapproach in terms of intervention has been




determined to be structuralism. This is sup-ported by the argument where this approachdenotes a particular configuration of metaphorsto describe the underlying dynamics of organi-zations as non-linear feedback systems (complex

evolving systems). In this sense the approachcould be apparently seen as being quite compre-hensive. However, these understandings seem toattempt to embrace far more than what can beachieved from this theoretical position. It then

Table 1. Incoherencies and their implications

Incoherence View supporting View supporting Implications fordescriptions intervention practice

Abandoning the Abandon the technical Determine regularities in There are still controllerstechnical interest interest: ‘accept the lack behaviour: there are who seek order in chaoswithout doing so: of foresight and control’ underlying structuresseeking order in (Stacey, 1996, p. 242) accounting for innovation Tension between the needchaos and learning to occur in for control and allowing

organizations. self-organizationMaking the practical No one can be in control: Regulate behaviour so as to Fallacy: the technical interestinterest technical: ‘no amount of human propitiate conditions for is predominant; the attempt isdriving the intelligence, self-awareness mutual understanding: to manipulate behaviour toorganization to the and determination can alter control parameters are to be propitiate creativity andedge of chaos the fundamental dynamics influenced to drive the innovation

of non-linear feedback’ organization to the edge of(Stacey, 1996 p. 218) chaos

Making the Changes in schemas are One schema is favoured: the Responding to the forces ofemancipatory interest liberating: individuals are mindset is co-evolving with the market is more important,technical: co- free to take their own the forces of the market, not emancipation in anyevolution and the authority, self-organizing operating far from normal sense of the wordforces of the market and thus producing equilibrium

creative new directions

The pervasiveness of The dynamic of change in One schema is favoured: The approach constrainsone dominant schema organizations is described ‘organizations are systems understanding aboutvs. the dynamic of as a process of changes in that learn in complex ways’ organization from a pluralistchanges in schemas schemas (Stacey, 1996, p. 242) perspective and also

constrains double looplearning

Assuming complex Complex–pluralist Complex–unitary Mechanistic, unitary–pluralist problem assumptions are made at assumptions are contexts are enforced:contexts as normal the edge of chaos: there made: creativity and propitiating a pluralistbut acting according is high divergence in terms innovation are the context involves makingto complex–unitary of values and beliefs; and purposes potentially unitary assumptionsproblem contexts disagreement about ends realized only by driving

and means the organization to theedge of chaos

Social constructivism A social constructivist view A structuralist approach Control is central to theand structuralism: is advocated: individuals is presupposed: management of organizationsinfluencing control co-construct themselves underlying structuresparameters and their world as they generating surface

interact phenomena are to beuncovered and understoodin order to be influenced




loses in terms of subverting the practical andemancipatory interests to the pursuit of predo-minantly the technical interest.

Also, it is important to consider that in terms ofintervention the approach favours one schema(the organization as a system that learns incomplex ways), indicating that it is trapped inone view. This added to its theoretical unreflec-tiveness through the uninformed presumptionsabout the propitiation of an ideal problemcontext, and considerably hinders the use of thisframework for double loop learning and plural-ism, and thus organizational self-reflection,understood from a CST perspective. The aboveconsiderations indicate that the approach couldbe considered to present a comprehensive frame-work; however, its usefulness for organizationalself-reflection is severely undermined.

C&CT as Offering a Hopeful Justificationfor Freedom

C&CT offers ‘a hopeful justification for freedomin organizational life’ (Stacey, 1996, p. 274). Froma critical systems thinking perspective this claimcould be interpreted as: C&CT can be seen asjustifying pursuing human well-being andemancipation in organizations.

Indeed a closer examination of Stacey’s expla-nation of this aspect reveals it could be in a sensean acknowledgement of Habermas’ three cogni-tive interests (Habermas, 1972, 1974). Asexpressed by Stacey, this approach favours that‘individuals are free to take their own authority,constrained only by the nature of the task, theneed to sustain support, and the imperative tobehave ethically’ (Stacey, 1996, p. 274).

Taking one’s own authority is seen as beingconstrained by the nature of the task (denoting atechnical interest); the need to sustain support(denoting a practical interest); and the impera-tive to behave ethically (denoting an emancipa-tory interest). These three aspects are seen asconstituting freedom, the legitimate use ofpower. So far, so good; C&CT could offer ajustification for freedom.

However, there seems to be an omission:what for? According to this theory, what do

individuals want to be free to use their ownauthority for? The response couldn’t be clearer:to create, to innovate in order to respond to theforces of the market. This does not seem to be‘emancipation’. The pursuit of the emancipatoryinterest is subverted to the technical interest, asdiscussed above. In effect, the experience of theself-managed team members confirms that thefreedom to design their job to learn and developnew initiatives is severely constrained by astructure and a series of controls that renderthem powerless and which support the organi-zations strategy to improve its performance inthe region. Consequently, learning is seen asinstrumental within an approach where adapt-ing to the environment is more important andnot emancipation.

An approach that offers a justification forfreedom from a CST perspective would involvesupporting individuals in ‘freeing themselvesfrom constraints imposed by power relations andin learning’ (Jackson, 1991, p. 49). The discussionabove has indicated that the approach is nothelpful in terms of the first constraint: powerrelations. Considering the uninformed manner inwhich C&CT approaches problem contexts andits unreflectiveness in dealing with underlyingassumptions, it is very questionable whether thisclaim as related to the second constraint, learn-ing, could be sustained.

C&CT as Ascribing a Paradoxical Roleto Managers

C&CT ascribes a ‘paradoxical role to managers’(Stacey, 1996, p. 276). From a CST perspectivethis claim could be interpreted as: C&CT assign-ing a role to managers that sees them ascontributing to technical and practical interests.

Ascribing a role to managers that has to dowith directing and not directing is the argumentused to highlight this paradox. However, whenone examines the explanation behind this aspect,it becomes clear that there is nothing paradoxicalabout it. It is said that managers, as leaders, haveto be the conventional directors of others(exercise ordinary management), but at the sametime they have to propitiate double loop learning




and contain the anxiety thus generated (exerciseextraordinary management). We see that theC&CT approach to management is about con-tributing primarily to the pursuit of the technicalinterest with an element of the practical and theemancipatory interests in support (imperialistposition); and there is nothing paradoxicalabout it.

The above is consistent with the situation asexperienced by self-managed team memberswhere they perceived the MD’s leadership roleas very influential in this process, and where thisapproach was described as predominantlymechanistic. In effect, self-managed team mem-bers thought the MD knew clearly where hewanted the organization to be, and he was clearlyleading it in this direction, although it was notclear to them which one it was.

The above is also corroborated by the argu-ment put forward above, which suggests thatusing mechanistic tools to remove a mechanisticapproach just makes it more pervasive. Thepredominantly mechanistic orientation of thisapproach is also evidenced in its unitaryassumptions (the end is to drive the organizationto the edge of chaos by means of manipulatingcontrol parameters).

The explanation of leadership from an extra-ordinary management perspective points to avalue-adding element of the C&CT approach. Inthis explanation leadership from an extraordin-ary management perspective means, amongother things, having the capacity to containanxiety for others, which has to do with havingcompassion for the feelings and fears of others;and with empathizing with others to articulatewhat they experience. This points to an aspectthat has been pushed to the background oforganizational studies: the emotional dimensionof the organization. Nevertheless this aspect isalso subverted here to the pursuit of the technicalinterest, because it is a control parameter thatmust be influenced.

The above discussion indicates that the para-dox attributed by Stacey (1996) to the rolesascribed to managers is ‘resolved’ in favour ofthe pursuit of the technical interest, that is, theexercise of ordinary management, which perme-ates the approach to intervention.

C&CT as a Framework for Managers to Thinkand Develop their own Responses

C&CT is a framework for managers to think anddevelop their own responses to it (Stacey, 1996).From a CST perspective this claim could beinterpreted as: C&CT is a way to look atorganizations, generating new ways to act inorganizations.

This paper has highlighted the fundamentalincoherencies that are present between the viewsupporting the descriptions and the view sup-porting intervention within this approach, andhow they come to the fore and affect the practice.We have already concluded about the implica-tions of these incoherencies in practice. Thisrenders the above claim unredeemable.

C&CT as an Approach Containing a WarningAgainst Complacency

The C&CT ‘approach to understanding organi-zations contains a warning against complacency’(Stacey, 1996, p. 281). From a CST perspectivethis claim could be interpreted as: C&CT is anapproach seeking to propitiate a complex–pluralist problem context.

It is explained that the idea for managers is tocontinuously seek to keep the shadow system onthe boil, preventing the organization from beinglocked in a successful strategy and thus beingtrapped in the stable zone. Thus, as explainedabove, this approach seems to attempt topropitiate a given problem context and notapproach the problem context faced. This seemsto be what ‘driving the organization to the edgeof chaos’ is all about. Apparently, then, thisapproach is not a problem-solving approach, buta ‘context-propitiating’ approach, and there is noreal pluralism about this. On the contrary, itconfirms its unitary position.

The practical exploration confirmed the above.Self-managed team members did perceive thatone of the roles of the MD was to continuously‘push the organization far from equilibrium’. This isrelated to his forward thinking. The MD himselfdescribed his job as: ‘explore the environment; sharefeedback; clear pathways; support people and bugger




things up!’ His actions seemed to indicate he wasconsistent with his words. The principle, keepprocesses ongoing, seemed to confirm that he wascomplying with the warning against compla-cency dictated by this approach. However, self-managed team members were not clear aboutwhere the MD wanted the organization to be;they did not seem to know what was his notion ofimprovement.

Additionally, all this confirms the structuralistposition underlying this approach and delineatesits possibilities by ascribing a functionalistorientation to it. The mechanistic approachadopted by the MD and the HR team toincorporate these ideas at the H-TEC demon-strates this.

C&CT as an Approach to Potentially DesignMore Effective Actions

The C&CT ‘approach to understanding organi-zations offers not a guarantee of success—thereis no such thing—but a more useful frameworkfor making sense of experience, reflecting andthus potentially designing more effective actions’(Stacey, 1996, p. 281). From a CST perspectivethis claim could be interpreted as: C&CT is aperspective that enables organizations to poten-tially design more effective actions.

Thus, it is clear that specific actions are notrecommended in this approach; the generalprescription is to influence control parametersto drive the organization to the edge of chaos.This is what is meant by potentially designingmore effective actions. This is an indication thatin essence the approach aims at propitiating agiven problem context. Evidently, from a CSTperspective any actions emerging from thisapproach cannot be considered to be effectivesimply because considerations about the natureof the very problem context faced are not takeninto account. Attempting to propitiate an ‘ideal’problem context, which is the pretension of theC&CT approach, is attempting to change thenature of the relationships between partici-pants deliberately. This also provides furtherevidence of the structuralist orientation of theapproach.

The practical exploration highlights anotheraspect that limits the potential of this approach todesign more effective actions. There exists aconfusion about the status of C&CT. This isevidenced in the difficulty self-managed teammembers had in coming to grips with C&CT—they were not sure whether it ‘described’ theirorganization or whether it offered a language forco-construction. In other words, the potential todesign more effective actions is seriously limitedby the difficulty in ascribing C&CT concepts anontological status or using them as epistemolo-gical devices. This is not surprising consideringthat the C&CT approach is flawed with theore-tical unreflectiveness. It unreflectively makes useof two currents of thought, which generatesmuch tension and renders the approach self-contradictory in theory, limiting its possibilitiesin practice.

C&CT AS A NEW PERSPECTIVE

C&CT provides ‘an overall framework for pull-ing together many existing building blocks in theliterature on management and organization intoa new way of approaching organizational life’(Stacey, 1996, p. 281). From a CST perspective theabove claim could be interpreted as: C&CToffering a new comprehensive perspective tounderstand and act in organizations.

At this stage of early incursion of these ideas inthe management sciences, two positions can beadopted to address the novelty of its contribu-tion. On the one hand, C&CT models andconcepts are given an ontological status, wheretheir novelty is in terms of providing improveddescriptions of the reality. On the other hand,they can be assumed to represent an epistemo-logical device; their novelty is seen in terms ofproviding new and insightful ways of thinking inorganizations.

An examination of the novelty of C&CT usingMorgan’s (1983) metaphors (see Ortegon, 1997,1999b; Carrizosa and Ortegon, 1998) demon-strates that the realities Stacey’s account onC&CT claims to express can be perfectly tackledand also expressed using available metaphorsindicating that, in a way, it has nothing new to




say. Stacey himself confirms this, as revealed bythe following quotation:

The complexity perspective indicates that manyof the messy processes that managers employbehind the cover of technical rationality are en-tirely appropriate. In that sense, the complexitytheory of organizations does not present any-thing new, anything that is not happening orhas not happened (Stacey, 1996, p. 272)

The ‘innovation’ probably relies in ‘revivingsystems theory by introducing insights frombiology and other disciplines, including psycho-analysis, and integrating them into a new andoriginal perspective’ (Eric Miller, Director,Group Relations Programme, Tavistock Institute,in Stacey, 1996, cover page).

Thus, the comprehensiveness of the approachlies in making use of available metaphors toaccount for this understanding of the dynamicsof organizations. Its novelty lies in ascribing aparticular arrangement or configuration of meta-phors to account for viewing organizations ascomplex evolving systems, operating in threezones. This might account for this approachbeing the most influential among others of itskind in management. However, as demonstratedabove, C&CT attempts to embrace contradictorypositions but in practice resolves in favour of thefunctionalist paradigm.

RECONSIDERATION OF ATTRIBUTEDVALUE-ADDING AND DIFFICULT-TO-EMBRACE POINTS

The above discussions lead us now to criticallyexamine the value-adding and difficult-to-embrace points that are attributed to thisapproach.

Reconsideration of Attributed Value-AddingPoints

Provides an Alternative Approach to UnderstandChangeThis can be considered to be a value-adding point,bearing in mind that this alternative approach tounderstanding change denotes a predominantly

structuralist perspective. As discussed above, theapproach can be considered to be a morecomprehensive framework; however its useful-ness for organizational self-reflection is severelyundermined by its theoretical unreflectiveness.

Gives Crucial Importance to LearningIn fact the favoured metaphor is ‘organizationsthat learn in complex ways’ (Stacey, 1996, p. 242).However, these sections also highlight that learn-ing is instrumental to adapting to the forces of themarket, indicating that the approach is trapped inone view. Thus, this can only be seen as a value-adding point from a functionalist perspective.

Refocuses Our View on Handling the Long TermThe view on handling the long term is notactually refocused; it is inherently contradictoryin the sense that the view supporting thedescriptions assumes that the long-term futureis unpredictable (only archetypal patterns arepredictable); however, the view supportingintervention focuses on influencing control para-meters so as to generate future desired effects.This is synthesized in the following quote:‘Although it is impossible for managers to realizeintentions and plan long-term creative outcomes,they may be able to realize the intention tooccupy the space for creativity by influencing thecontrol parameters outlined above’ (Stacey, 1996,p. 215). Thus this cannot be considered as avalue-adding point related to C&CT.

Represents a Theory of HumilityThis point refers to the idea that change cannotbe predetermined or controlled; thus managershave to let it unravel and accept that they cannever be in control. It is the technical interest incontrol that is predominant in this approach tomanagement. In this order of ideas, this aspectcannot be attributed to this approach.

Reconsideration of Difficult-to-Embrace Points

Emphasizes that the Oorganization Should Operateat the Edge of OhaosThe propitiation of this eminently pluralistcontext of the edge of chaos involves a unitary




assumption; namely that managers are to drivethe organization to its continuous and constantoperation at this state. This incoherence under-mines this intention, making this an extremelydifficult-to-embrace point.

Offers Limited Possibilities for Formal Mechanisms tobe InstalledThis point refers to this theory not providing anyassistance in terms of specific methodologies ormethods, only very general indications on how todrive the organization to the edge of chaos, andeven downplaying the role of analysis, on thebasis that creativity and innovation, spottingpatterns and emergent strategies render analysisas irrelevant. This could be considered as a factderived from the developmental stage of thistheory. However, from a CST perspective this factdenotes lack of critical awareness. Indeed, uponconsidering the different states in which, accord-ing to this theory, the organization operates, andwhich denote different problem contexts, onecannot gainsay that there is a whole range ofmethodologies, methods and tools available thatcan be used in combination to assist managers inapproaching various problem situations, withinthe spirit of pluralism (Jackson, 2000).

Presents the Organization as Subject to the Forces ofthe MarketThis point refers to the emphasis on the belief inthe properties of the market, characteristic of ourtimes. It seems to be telling on the authority of this‘new’ science that non-intervention is best (Rosen-head, 1998), which is music to the ears of the neo-liberalist spirit of our times. Our discussion hasdemonstrated that intervention is contemplatedand this is exerted in a rather subtle form—bycontrolling behaviour, and this is definitely donein the interest of the organization adapting to theforces of the market. Considering the correctivemade, this is indeed a difficult-to-embrace pointfor perspectives other than neo-liberalism.

Offers an Uncomfortable Message in Terms ofDeliberately Fostering Politics to InstitutionalizeLearningThis point is uncomfortable from a CST pers-pective because it denotes the underlying pre-

dominance of the mechanistic approach inmanipulating politics and other control para-meters without regard for any considerationabout the nature of the problem situation. Thisalso exemplifies the unitary assumptions that aremade for propitiating a pluralist context. Thus,from this perspective this point becomes difficultto embrace because it denotes lack of sociologicaland critical awareness.

CONTRIBUTION OF C&CT APPROACH TOMANAGEMENT: WAYS FORWARD

The main contribution of Stacey’s approach tomanagement is that it attempts to generate analternative appreciation of processes of changeand evolution in organizations. It does this byproviding a framework to articulate variousdimensions of organizational reality. In otherwords, it tries to integrate various existing viewsin the management literature about organiza-tions to account for the underlying structuresand systems that generate change. This denotes astructuralist position.

This attempt to articulate one view by usingC&CT terms and concepts to integrate variousexisting views in the management literature isfruitful in that it can enhance understanding,precisely by providing an alternative view. Theparticular ‘assembly’ of these ideas and concepts(metaphors) via C&CT justifies its claim of beingnovel. However, as comprehensive as this viewmight seem in terms of integrating other views, itpresents a particular arrangement of them,namely, the view of organizations as complexevolving systems, confirming its structuralistposition. Awareness of this position points to aseries of contradictions, which seriously limitsthe possibilities of the approach in terms of itsclaims on intervention.

Indeed, in terms of intervention the ap-proach does not propose any methodology, butrecommends a series of procedures to facilitate‘social construction’. These involve influencing aseries of ‘control parameters’ to drive theorganization to the ‘edge’, in order to propitiatean ‘ideal’ problem context, but it is preciselyhere that it is deemed to fail. This is so because




the approach cannot pretend to escape oneparadigm by using the very paradigm’s tools todo so. This is its major pretension and also itsmajor limitation in terms of its contribution tothe field.

Thus the main contribution of this approach isin terms of using C&CT concepts to integrateavailable ideas and concepts in the managementliterature, generating an alternative understand-ing about the processes of change and evolutionin organizations by creating a framework, which‘assembles’ different existing views on organiza-tions under the umbrella of the view of organiza-tions as complex evolving systems. However, onintervening, it is evident that the approachcannot take all the views of its interpretations.Consequently, in using the very tools of theposition (functionalist/structuralist), it tries toescape; it inevitably traps itself, limiting its ownclaims in terms of intervention. On reviewing hiswork, which is the articulation of this theory,Stacey seems to confirm this on acknowledgingthat: ‘Whenever I tried to say anything prescrip-tive, it came out in terms of the dominantdiscourse [conventional management discourse]expressed in a different vocabulary’ (Stacey et al.,2000, p. 209).

A way forward would then be to overcomethe inherent inconsistencies of Stacey’s ap-proach in terms of his own claims about theview supporting his descriptions and the actualview supporting intervention. Indeed, if it isclaimed that the view adopted to explainorganizations’ problems and concerns is socialconstructivism, then approaches to interven-tion coherent with this view are to be adopted.This might appear to be the obvious and logicalway to overcome the difficulty with Stacey’sapproach.

In fact, in subsequent publications (StrategicManagement and Organizational Analysis, 2000 andComplexity and Management, 2000) Stacey seeks toadopt a perspective that is more in line withsocial constructivism, and seems more ‘in tune’with the interpretive paradigm. However, hisevident lack of critical awareness in terms ofsystems approaches to management reflects thatit is not clear whether he acknowledges that hisapparent progress is due to aligning his thinking

with one paradigm—this time, the interpretiveone. He also cannot consider what he now losesby doing this. It could be argued that he losestouch with everything C&CT previously claimedto have to offer; and certainly all claim tooriginality.

CONCLUSION

This paper highlighted the contradictions inStacey’s account about C&CT in managementand determined how they affect practice, indi-cating the potential of this approach in thefield. The discussion focused on the impli-cations of the theoretical incoherencies inpractice; reconsidered the value-adding anddifficult-to-embrace points attributed to thisapproach, and showed how Stacey’s claimscannot be redeemed, indicating what C&CT candeliver and suggesting how it can be used inthe practice. The critique in general evidencedthe lack of self-reflectiveness in this approachabout its own limitations and thus lack ofrecognition of its present, rather limited sphereof applicability.

REFERENCES

Burrell G, Morgan G. 1979. Sociological Paradigms andOrganizational Analysis. Heinemann: London.

Checkland P, Holwell S. 1998. Action research: itsnature and validity. Systems Practice and ActionResearch 11(1): 9–21.

Habermas J. 1972. Knowledge and Human Interests.Heinemann: London.

Habermas J. 1974. Theory and Practice. Heinemann:London.

Jackson MC. 1991. Systems Methodology for the Manage-ment Sciences. Plenum: New York.

Jackson MC. 1999. Towards coherent pluralism inmanagement science. Journal of the OperationalResearch Society 50(11): 12–22.

Jackson MC. 2000. Systems Approaches to Management.Kluwer Academic/Plenum: New York.

Jackson MC, Keys P. 1984. Towards a system ofsystems methodologies. Journal of the OperationalResearch Society 35: 473–486.

Mingers J, Gill A. 1997. Multimethodology: The Theoryand Practice of Combining Management Science Meth-odologies. Wiley: Chichester.




Morgan G. 1986. Images of Organization. Sage: BeverlyHills, CA.

Morgan G. 1993. Imaginization. Sage: New York.Rosenhead J. 1998. Complexity theory and manage-

ment practice. Working paper 98.25, OperationalResearch, London School of Economics.

Stacey R. 1996. Complexity and Creativity in Organiza-tions. Berret-Koehler: San Francisco.

Stacey R, Griffin D, Shaw P. 2000. Complexity andManagement. Routledge: London.

Storr F. 1997. On Becoming a Learning Company.Humberside Training and Enterprise Council,UK.

Taylor S, Bodgan R. 1984. Introduction to QualitativeResearch Methods: The Search for meanings (2nd edn).Wiley: New York.




chaos and complexity theory in management: an exploration from a critical systems thinking...

Documents