Organisations are not Complex Adaptive Systems
Those who see organizations as living systems often draw an analogy with the behaviour of colonies of ants or flocks of birds. And it was the attempt to simulate this behaviour in the laboratory that led to the notion of the Complex Adaptive System (CAS). There, ‘agents’ interacting locally, according to a few pre-programmed rules of interaction, were seen to self-organize to form coherent ‘global’ patterns of behaviour.
This has led to the idea that managers could set a few simple rules of interaction for staff and allow them to self-organize; rather than seeking to impose detailed order from on high.
To treat an organization as a CAS would require those same conditions to be fulfilled. That is, a set of rules would need to be imposed by someone outside the system boundary (as with the programmer). And those rules would have to be followed precisely and without exception.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, perhaps) these conditions do not apply. First, managers (the presumed programmers) are not external observers and controllers of other peoples actions; they are involved participants. Secondly, people don’t tend to follow rules, simple or otherwise. Issues of power, ideology, self interest, emotion and identity etc are always in play. Thirdly, organizations are not systems, in the sense that this is usually meant. Amongst other things, they don’t have boundaries. And, whereas a hand, say, (as part of the human body) cannot function if it is cut off from the body as a whole, an individual can-and does-function independently of the organization
At the same time, as Ralph Stacey and his colleagues point out, the work on CASs provides a useful source domain of analogy for what actually does go on in organizations. In particular, outcomes do emerge from peoples self-organizing interactions-as they make sense together of what is going on and decide how they are going to act.
So I would argue that what we talk of as “organizations” are complex social processes of people in interaction (or complex responsive processes, as Stacey would say). Nothing (i.e. no ‘thing’) exists outside of this process of everyday interaction. That is, there is no overarching body (an organization) that thinks, feels and acts independently of these local interactions. So organizations cannot be living organisms, or living systems because, in terms of the dynamics I have been describing, they do not exist as an entity. The self-organizing dynamics of people interacting together simply generate patterns of meaning and action that we (have come to) think of as “organization”.
I have one final point to make in relation to the original extract. Today, I would try to avoid using a phrase such as “the organisation’s thinking”. Organizations don’t think. People do. I’m sure that that is what I meant at the time, and that I was only using this as shorthand. However, talking of organizations as “living systems”, and implying that these presumed entities have agency beyond that of the individuals within them, has become a well-established way of describing organizations from a “systems” perspective. The informal coalitions perspective does not adopt a systems viewpoint of organizational dynamics; it sees organizations instead as complex social processes of people interacting together.
I have argued against the widely accepted position that organizations are “systems”, which need to be looked at and managed ‘as a whole’. It is easy to see why this view is popular. It seemingly allows us, as managers, to ‘step outside’ this clearly bounded system and take control. From the vantage point of the objective observer, we can spot and design-out the flaws that are undermining organizational performance; we can identify and pull those few ‘levers’ that will unlock the sought-after levels of performance; and we can take steps to ensure that the intended outcomes will unfold as planned.
If we reject the idea of an organization as a system, are we left solely with individuals operating independently and acting in isolation? Well, no!
Organizations are social phenomena
What we talk of as organizations are social phenomena. They comprise people in relationship with one another. They are also constructed phenomena. That is, people get together and ‘make things up’ – making sense of what’s going on and, through this relational process, deciding what things mean and how they will act. Interdependence, interaction and interpretation are therefore fundamental dynamics of organizations. However, despite this interconnectedness, it does not follow that people are subservient to some imaginary, overarching ‘system’ – “the organization” – which decides and acts, competes and co-operates, succeeds and fails, etc on their behalf.
So if systems thinking cannot account for the dynamics of organizations, what can? What is going on?
Organizations as networks of conversations
…outcomes emerge from the complex interplay of the conversations that make up everyday organizational life. As suggested above, it is here, in the give-and-take of day-to-day interaction, that people make sense of what’s going on and decide how they are going to act.
Some of the themes that emerge from these conversations are taken up in the formal arenas of the organization and become adopted as formal policies, strategies, structures and so on. Others remain ‘in the shadows’. They continue to influence the ways in which people make sense of and act upon emerging events, but are not openly acknowledged in formal settings.
This is a dynamic and self-organizing process, which takes place regardless of the design of formal structures, systems and processes. For this reason, in Informal Coalitions, I describe organizations as …
“dynamic networks of self-organizing conversations.”
“Boundaryless” as an inevitable dynamic not a design parameter
An important corollary of this way of understanding organizations is that the conversations that people have with each other do not respect formal organizational “boundaries”. We might choose to think of the world in terms of separate, boundaried entities that we call organizations and define them as such for legal purposes. But the underlying, conversational dynamics (and the outcomes that flow from them) are not confined by these artificially constructed divisions.
So, whereas clearly identifiable boundaries are a fundamental concept in systems thinking and organizational design, all ‘organizations’ are unavoidably boundaryless from a complex social process perspective.
…organizations are dynamic networks of conversations. This is in contrast to the view that organizations are “systems”, which need to be looked at and managed “as a whole”
…the formal ‘trappings’ of organization retain the ‘imprints’ of past conversations; taking forward into new conversations those themes that have been given the stamp of legitimacy. In this sense, these represent the ‘authorized version’ of the organizational ‘story’. They provide the formal context for people’s ongoing interactions, and for the sensemaking and action taking that arise from them. In this way, the formal themes continue to influence interactions well beyond those in which they were originally formulated; carrying the ‘weight’ of formality and being ‘given voice’ (actually or by inference) by those in formal authority.
So why doesn’t this ‘authorized version’ simply materialize in the ways intended and deliver the planned results? What else is going on?
The effect that this design has on people’s actual behaviour - and therefore on the performance outcomes that result - depends crucially on how it is perceived, interpreted, evaluated and acted upon in countless local interactions.
…in practice, the creation of the ‘authorized version’ of the organizational story and its subsequent implementation are affected more by the complex political dynamics, ideological stances and personal identities of those involved, than by the rational analysis and systematic decision-making that is implied by conventional management wisdom.
…it’s important to recognize that people don’t respond to strategies, plans, rules and the like. They respond to their perceptions, interpretations and evaluations of those strategies, plans and rules – as formed, primarily, through their conversations and interactions with others…
Of course, the formally stated requirements provide an important input into people’s ongoing sensemaking. But these do not…simply unfold over time in a predictable and predetermined fashion
The more that people make sense of things in particular ways, the more likely they are to continue to make sense of things in similar ways going forward. This tendency to think and act in line with existing patterns of thought and action becomes taken for granted. It remains out of people’s immediate awareness. But it powerfully affects the ways in which they interact, and the actions and outcomes that result.
It is not, therefore, an external ‘force’ (“the system”) that compels people to think and act in particular ways…Instead, it is the ongoing, self-organizing, process of people in interaction which itself tends to pattern the ways in which people perceive, interpret, evaluate and act upon emerging events and experiences. This patterning process creates expectancy. That is, the patterns of past sensemaking and action-taking tend to channel ongoing sensemaking down these familiar, increasingly well-trodden ‘pathways’. The potential always exists for these patterns to shift and novel outcomes to arise. But the balance of probability is heavily biased towards continuity rather than change – with people’s interactions tending to reinforce existing patterns of thinking, feeling and acting, rather than opening up new patterns.
…it is people’s perceptions, interpretations and evaluations of formal structures, strategies and systems that will determine what actually happens. It is not the structures, strategies and systems themselves.
- Chris Rodgers (also check out the great comment that shares an anecdote)
Related
…organisations are not systems at all
Positive feedback loops amplify deviations from the norm
Humans do not behave like ants, termites, bacteria, etc…
Complex adaptive theory in human systems is different from in the physical world
The awareness of the agent in human complex systems
Leaders are not in control of outcomes
On self-organization and emergence: #1 - Processes not systems
Self-organization and emergence: #2 – Organizational dynamics v organization design and development
