Topic: Overview: Organizations as Sociocultural Systems and Cultures

Hey Tutor,You will produce 500 words or more for this discussion. Please take not of the topic, the rubric and week 2 discussion instructions. Please read the instructions carefully and below the week 2 instructions is aan additional note that I copied from my colleague to broaden your idea about last week. The student gave a great explanation of week 1 that you need to read to move to week 2. Also make use of the additional resources attached.

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316540205
Four domains of complexity
Article · June 2016
CITATIONS
READS
19
2,033
1 author:
Gerald Midgley
University of Hull
203 PUBLICATIONS 5,290 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Gerald Midgley on 28 February 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Emergence: Complexity & Organization
An International Transdisciplinary Journal of
Complex Social Systems
VOLUME 18, Number 2, 2016
Published and distributed by:
3810 N 188th Ave
Litchfield Park, AZ 85340, USA
i
Emergence: Complexity & Organization
An International Transdisciplinary Journal of
Complex Social Systems
Editors-in-Chief
PETER ALLEN, Complex Systems Research Centre, Cranfield University, Bedford, UK
JEFFREY GOLDSTEIN, Adelphi University, Garden City, NY, US
DAVID SNOWDEN, Cognitive Edge, UK
Managing Editor and Production Editor
KURT RICHARDSON, Emergent Publications, Litchfield Park, AZ, US
Founding Editor of Emergence
MICHAEL LISSACK, ISCE, Boston, MA, USA
Graphic Design
MARSHALL CLEMENS, Idiagram, Boston, MA, USA
Subject Editors
Innovation & Networks: PIERPAOLO ANDRIANI, Durham University, UK
Organizational Knowledge & Learning: ELENA ANTONACOPOULOU, University of Liverpool, UK
Strategy, Leadership & Change: DOUGLAS GRIFFIN, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Economics & Markets: STAN METCALFE, University of Manchester, UK
Philosophy: RIKA PREISER & JANNIE HOFMEYR, Department of Philosophy, Stellenbosch University, ZAF
Methodology: PEDRO SOTOLONGO, Instituto de Filosofia de La Habana, CUB
MIKA AALTONEN Finland Futures Research Centre, FIN
ROBERT ARTIGIANI U.S. Naval Academy, USA
PAUL ATKINS Australian National University in Canberra, AUS
MIN BASADUR Applied Creativity, CAN
KEN BASKIN ISCE Research, USA
TERRY BOSSOMAIER Charles Sturt University, AUS
DANIEL R. BROOKS University of Toronto, CAN
DAVID BYRNE University of Durham, UK
RAY COOKSEY University of New England, AUS
YSANNE CARLISLE Open University Business School, UK
JERRY L. R. CHANDLER Washington Evolutionary Systems Society, USA
SHAUN COFFEY Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, AUS
LYNN CRAWFORD University of Technology, Sydney, AUS
ELEODORO VENTOCILLA CUADROS DKV Group, VEN
ADRIAN DALE Creatifica Associates Limited, UK
ERIC B. DENT University of North Carolina, USA
KEVIN DOOLEY Arizona State University, USA
LEIF EDVINSSON Universal Networking Intellectual Capital, SWE
GLENDA EOYANG Chaos Limited, USA
MARY MARGARET EVANS Office of the Secretary of Defense, USA
JOHN FERRIE Smiths Aerospace, UK
WILLIAM FREDERICK University of Pittsburgh, USA
HUGH GUNZ University of Toronto, CAN
JIM HAZY Adelphi University, USA
HEATHER WOOD ION Independent Consultant, USA
ROBERT JERVIS University of Columbia, USA
ALICIA JUARRERO Prince George’s Community College, USA
ROBERT KAY University of Technology, Sydney, AUS
RICHARD KNOWLES The SOLiance Group, USA
LEV LEVITIN Boston University, USA
STEVE MAGUIRE McGill University, CAN
IGOR MATUTINOVIC GfK: Center for Market Research, HRV
DAN MCGRATH IBM Corporation, USA
ELIZABETH MCMILLAN Open University, UK
GERALD MIDGLEY University of Hull, UK
EVE MITLETON-KELLY London School of Economics, UK
GARETH MORGAN Imaginization Inc., CAN
DT OGILVIE Rutgers Business School, USA
PASCAL PEREZ Australian National University, AUS
NICHOLAS C. PEROFF University of Missouri-Kansas City, USA
MARIO ANTONIO RIVERA University of New Mexico, USA
ENZO RULLANI Ca’ Foscari University, ITA
ANDREW TAIT Idea Sciences, USA
ROBERT E. ULANOWICZ University of Maryland, USA
WILLARD UNCAPHER Network Emergence, USA
MARIUS UNGERER USB, ZAF
LIZ VARGA Cranfield School of Management, UK
CAROL WEBB University of Sheffield, UK
MAURICE YOLLES Liverpool John Moores University, UK
RODRIGO ZEIDAN University of Nottingham, CHN
Subscription prices (2016, volume 18, 4 issues) not including postage and handling: US$1295.00 Corporate/US$795.00 Institutional/
US$99.95 Individual (complementary print on request and electronic access to all previous issues). Members of the ISSS can subscribe
to this journal at a concessionary rate. They must declare that the subscription is for their own private use, it will not replace any
institutional subscription, and it will not be put at the disposal of any library. Subscriptions should be sent directly to the Emergent
Publications, 3810 N 188th Ave, Litchfield Pk, AZ 85340, USA, or to any subscription agent.
ii
iii
iv
VOLUME 18, Number 2, 2016
CONTENTS
Contents
Editorial: Rationality vs. irrationality…………………………………. vii
Peter Allen
Research Papers
Paradox in organizations seen as social
complex systems……………………………………………………………………. 1
Petter Braathen
Viewing WIL in business schools through a new lens:
Moving to the edge of chaos with complexity theory…..28
Laura Rook & Lisa McManus
Social systems: Complex adaptive loci of cognition………55
Marta Lenartowicz, David (Weaver) Weinbaum &
Petter Braathen
A cladistics and Linnaean exploration into the Darwinian
selection of favorable varieties of the ideal / textbook
manufacturing species…………………………………………………………90
Christen Rose-Anderssen, James Baldwin & Keith Ridgway
Complexity, conceptual models, and teacher
decision-making research………………………………………………… 119
Marla Robertson & Leslie Patterson
v
CONTENTS
(continued)
Classic paper
Four domains of complexity……………………………………………. 137
Gerald Midgley
Forum
Adjacent opportunities: Enlightened economics………… 177
Ron Schultz
Calling notices and announcements……………………………………………………181
Featured image………………………………………………………………………………………..188
vi
Editorial: Rationality vs. irrationality
Editorial:
Rationality vs. irrationality
Editorial
Allen Peter
Cranfield University, ENG
M
y previous editorial was about the differences in views between Plato and
Aristotle, and how this difference is still of importance today. Plato thought
that the objects of true knowledge inhabit another world—an abstract
realm independent of time and space, accessible only to the intellect. He thought
that the world we experience was a shallow, misleading façade, behind which lay a
more important, more fundamental world of perfect forms and souls. But Aristotle
thought that there was only one world that we could philosophize about—the world
we inhabit and on which we can perform experiments. He was dismissive of Plato’s
Ideal Forms. He did not believe they exist. Where Plato believed that truth could be
reached only through reason, Aristotle believed that by combining experiments with
rational analysis and mathematics, we could reveal universal truths. Aristotle is clearly
a founding thinker of the scientific approach. As a scientist, clearly, all my sympathies
were with Aristotle and his approach. I hope to gain knowledge and use it successfully.
In real life then, the ‘sensible thing’ is to work out what the probable consequences of a possible action might be, based on previous experiments, and then decide on
the one you think is ‘best’. Over many years I have been involved in building models
on the basis that they might help the people involved to understand what factors
are important for their situation, and what are the dimensions of potential interest
resulting from a possible action or decision. This did help us (the modellers) greatly
in surviving financially long enough to develop complex systems modelling and to
learn about various chunks of ‘real’—urban development and transportation, fisheries,
economic development and planning, organizational decisions, innovations and many
others. Eventually it has led to ‘agent based modelling’ where the different agents and
types of agent involved in an issue have individual characteristics, motivations and
beliefs, and the models can explore how such a system may change over time, and
potentially how the constituent individuals may change as well. This clearly links the
rational external effects of the agents in interaction to their own inner layers of values
and needs, which may be hidden and might cause surprises.
The first success of the early complex systems models showed how the variables
might, over the medium term, self-organize into different patterns either spatially or
E:CO 2016 18(2): vii-xi | vii
structurally, which could radically alter the performance of the system as a whole. This
was due to the non-linearities in the interactions between individual elements. The
models could explore the permanent dialogue between the existing structure and the
local fluctuations and deviations from average, and thus can permanently ‘test’ the
stability of the existing structures. This was captured in early ‘complex systems’ models, which could generate different possible trajectories into the future, with different
emergent structures and organizations, giving rise to new regimes of operation. So
such models allowed the exploration of potential emergent structures, for different
historical deviations from average. In this way, a range of possible futures could be
imagined for cities as different possible hierarchies might emerge. Similarly, within cities, neighborhoods could take on different characteristics and activities. Fishing fleets
could adopt different spatial strategies of ‘learning’ how to locate new fish stocks, and
economic organizations could evolve creatively their production systems and organizational structures. In some ways the models revealed something of the possible
medium term reorganizations that might occur. Such changes would not have been
predicted by ‘traditional’ systems models, whose spatial or organizational structure
remained constant. All this was potentially very useful in clarifying what might happen
over the medium term.
Looking back now I can see that, for the longer term, there remained a problem.
All of these systems evolved qualitatively (new variables and mechanisms) over time,
and for many of them the arrival of new technologies, new issues and problems, new
possible solutions gradually overtook the models. The early urban models talked of
white collar and blue collar workers, for example, and obviously the actual nature of
the work involved in particular sectors changed radically. Such models therefore started off close to reality, but over time were increasingly describing changes in terms of
the wrong variables and mechanisms. Evolution both in human systems and in ecosystems more generally, will evolve and change both the inputs, the variables and the
outputs that are relevant. Models should be seen therefore as exploring the effects of
current rationalities, allowing for deviations from average and local fluctuations that
can lead to different possible collective structures and patterns emerging. Notably,
though, they do not anticipate changes in the rationalities and internal beliefs of the
individuals represented in the models, and the identities, values, ethics and morals of
the participants. We find that our models represent a kind of scientific ‘Aristotelian
process’ sitting on a ‘Platonic’ set of impenetrable inner beliefs and views which may
change in unpredictable ways over time. In the end we are forced to use models to
test whether the variables and mechanisms within them are still true. The real ‘use’ of
such models is to monitor the system and detect when something is no longer chang-
viii | Allen
Editorial: Rationality vs. irrationality
ing as forecast—and to force us to seek out what the reason might be. We can then
‘re-normalize’ our models and ‘bring them up to date’ with new, unexpected realities.
It is important to realize that we can never have models that ‘predict’ correctly the
future over the long term. This is because, if the agents within a model ever believed
in its predictions, then some of them at least would change their behavior in order
to ‘profit’ from the predictions – thus invalidating the model and its predictions! This
is the reality of ‘reflexivity’ which tells us that the model, if believed, becomes part of
reality itself, and affects what will actually happen. In 1987 George Soros wrote a remarkable book entitled “The Alchemy of Finance”, which made this point. But perhaps
being written by a financier and not by an academic it never got the academic recognition it deserved. However, it turns out that these ideas are not just true for finance,
but really are true for social systems in general. Models of economic markets, urban
development and of flows of goods, services and information will all display this alchemy, whereby the ‘predicted outcome’ may affect the behavior of some individuals
and thereby invalidate the assumptions of the model and its predictions. These assumptions are couched in terms of behavior that reflects the ‘preferences’ of the individuals or organizations concerned. These are most often reflected in economic terms
so that prices or cost/benefits are used to drive the model. With this, and the wellknown ‘It’s the economy stupid’, we had moved to the idea that it is really only economics that matters. And that ‘learning’ was all about rational economic arguments.
And then came the BREXIT (the UK referendum on staying or leaving the EU) vote.
In that economics is seen as the most important basis of politics and government, it
was assumed that by presenting the economic calculations about what would happen with or without BREXIT, then people would vote to remain in the EU. Despite the
overwhelming evidence given by every professional organization concerned with the
economics of the UK there was nevertheless a majority for leaving. This shows that
people are not necessarily swayed by reason and reasonable arguments, even about
economics. David Hume in the early 1700s said “Reason is, and ought only to be the
slave of the passions”. In other words, it is not ‘reason’ that dictates what we love and
what we hate, but rather that we use ‘reason’ to better pursue our loves and hates.
The feeling of some people was to simply to give the government a good kicking, and
they calculated correctly that a vote to leave the EU would be a great protest.
Analysis of the voting showed that less well educated, older people tended to
vote ‘leave’, and younger, educated people tended to vote to ‘stay’. The point being
that the older, less educated people used the referendum to vent their feelings about
successive UK governments that had allowed the gap between rich and poor to grow,
E:CO 2016 18(2): vii-xi | ix
had allowed in lots of immigrants, from both inside and outside the EU, who competed for jobs, and who also had seen the impact of ‘free trade’ international competition on manufacturing and many ordinary jobs, leading to increased pressure on their
wages and their jobs. In addition, the UK has always had a rather strong nationalist
streak that is massaged by the constant focus of a savage press on celebrities, and on
the wonders of the UK and its amazing history. This has meant that English people on
the whole do not speak foreign languages, are not very concerned by events outside
the UK and simply revel in being British. All this has meant that instead of participating
in European Democracy and its Parliament, the few people that bothered to vote in
European elections, sent candidates like Nigel Farage there, and watched in amusement as he tried to cause mayhem and to disrupt proceedings.
This reveals how the rational/irrational decision to leave the EU was based on internal feelings and emotions about identity that were not based on rational economic
assessments. Of course, the reality of the ‘leave’ vote will only be felt over time – several years at least and will depend on the kind of deal that we can manage with the
EU. It is totally premature to suggest that things are okay because the stock markets
have not crashed. Right now, through the currency devaluation of 10% that followed
the vote, the people of the UK ‘lost’ – £183 Billion which dwarfs the (false) figures
quoted by the ‘leave’ campaign for what we ‘paid’ into the EU. All this goes to show
how the hidden, internal thoughts and identities are crucially important in what they
do. These are shaped by history and how it is depicted, by individual histories, local
events and how these are portrayed to them. Clearly, although young people were in
favor of staying in the EU, older people still were not. The overhanging memories and
heroic part played by the UK in successive World Wars clearly still made many older
people see Europe as more a source of problems than of solutions. The young had
already shifted their perspective to a more positive view of Europe.
Anyway, the point of this Editorial is not to argue for or against BREXIT, but to
show that ‘reason’ is not as important as we think. Science can show many things
through repeatable experiments, but in social systems it is not clear which experiments
will be repeatable, and how to ‘capture’ the inner beast. The idea of representing human behavior by that of Homo Economicus or Rational Man is clearly erroneous when
one thinks how people’s decisions will reflect their desired ‘image’, their hormones
and their particular self-delusions. In a way the whole operation has highlighted the
dangers of a government by plebiscite, as different individuals can use the occasion
for a multitude of different purposes. Particularly when the actual consequences are
not clear as nobody has detailed the different trajectories that might occur. It demonstrates the importance of a parliamentary ‘shield’ through which ideas and their posx | Allen
Editorial: Rationality vs. irrationality
sible consequences are debated thoroughly. It does seem that a yes/no referendum
for such a complex question was really not a sensible idea.
Complexity shows us that in reality, evolved systems have multiple levels, which
co-evolve, and hence which combine internal structures and beliefs with external effects and issues. In essence Emergence: Complexity and Organization is all about this
amazing, creative evolutionary system which is the universe. This means that over
time the actual elements and structures of a system will change—the current dictionary will have to evolve in pursuit of reality. As the first chapter of the Dao de Jing says
“That of which you can speak is not the reality—The Way that can be walked is not the
eternal Way”.
This shows us that what constitutes ‘reason’ itself will evolve and change, and any
model will need to be revised over time. In Chapter 4 of the Dao de Jing we find—“It
is the underdetermined nature of the world that makes it, like a bottomless goblet, inexhaustibly capacious. The Way is empty, yet inexhaustible, like an abyss!” This phrase
is absolutely marvelous and uses (it seems) some Chinese equivalent of ‘underdetermined’!!! This means that it understands that although there is some ‘causality’ in the
world, it is not all-powerful, and so some things will happen which were not explicit
in what went before. The world, although often running along in an unsurprising way,
is also free to do something unexpected and creative. Within a temporary framework
of structure and organization, new elements, characteristics and functionalities can
emerge! In other words, an inexhaustible evolution will occur.
In many ways complexity allows us to bring science to this ancient wisdom, and
instead of proving it false, to see now we may recognize and enhance its brilliant
thoughts. No model that we can build will be a fixed ‘reality’, we shall need to change
the dictionary (of variables and mechanisms) over time. And for this we need to make
sure that we look for changes occurring inside its structure and elements as well as
within its complex evolved organized networks that constitutes its current structure.
The example of BREXIT merely goes to show us that inner dimensions may well throw
surprises in the way of seemingly clear rational conclusions. To misquote Hume “Rationality is not only the slave of the passions, but the passions are to an extent the
slave of history”.
E:CO 2016 18(2): vii-xi | xi
Paradox in organizations seen as social complex systems
Paradox in organizations seen
as social complex systems
Theoretical
Petter Braathen
Vrije Universiteit, BEL
Mr. Braathen holds a Master of Science in Control & Electrical Engineering from Norwegian University
for Science and Technology, and from University of Washington. He further holds a Master of Science
in Strategy and International Business from the Norwegian School of Management. Mr. Braathen is
currently completing a Ph.D. at the University of Brussels, in the interdisciplinary program, focusing on
complexity theory applied to strategic management and organizational theory. Mr. Braathen facilitates
strategic visioning, organizational change, and leadership development for global companies in various
industries.
Paradox may be the ground zero for disciplined speculation that forces individuals,
organizations and societies to challenge normality and existing mental frames.
Paradox can be a threat, and paradox can be a source for new insight. This paper
examines how a paradox can emerge and develop in organizations. I will argue
that the organization can be seen as a complex social system, and that the paradox
rises as the system faces increased complexity in its environment, while equipped
with an information processing architecture that reduces the complexity in an
inadequate way. Following a review of classes of paradoxes: rhetorical, logical and
social, the paper describes an organization as a complex social system with cognitive
operations. The cognitive operations include drawing of distinctions, forming of
categories, individuation of the system and the boundaries to the environment,
and adaptability as a second order reorganization. The paper then discusses the
dynamics and micro-foundation of how a paradox is formed based on this model.
Three categories of social paradoxes: paradox of belonging, paradox of learning,
and paradox of organizing, are analyzed and described as dynamic behavior in
a system. The paper intends to inform a trans-disciplinary approach to describe
phenomenon in organizations seen as complex social systems, and to contribute
with conceptual understanding to be applied in empirical studies of paradoxical
situations in organizations.
Introduction
T
he cognitive discomfort evoked by the phenomenon of a paradox provides a
motivation to go back and resume business as usual, as if nothing happened.
Only a few, usually philosophers at heart, like to revisit that edge, and wonder.
E:CO 2016 18(2): 1-27 | 1
These are the thinkers of which Kierkegaard wrote that the paradox is the source of
their passion. We may think of the paradoxes as the atoms of philosophy, the basic
point of departure for disciplined speculation. They challenge our compulsory universal beliefs; force us to see the symptoms of frailties in our reason, and to ask fundamental questions.
Paradox increasingly appears in organizational studies with a growing recognition that management and organization theory need to address the phenomenon
that is inherent in human beings and their social systems1,2. We need to confront the
paradoxes. To seek what really happens in organizations as opposed to ‘what is supposed to happen’3. Organizational theories attempt to capture a highly complex reality with finite internally consistent statements, which essentially are incomplete4. Multiple scholars have claimed that exploration of paradoxes, with dynamic tension and
balances, might move beyond oversimplified and polarized notions and stimulate development of more encompassing theories1,5,6. The approach would need to embrace
complexity, diversity and ambiguity of organizational life as well as the complexity and
ambiguity of the challenges in its environment.
Paradoxes come in all shapes and colors, and there are multiple meanings of the
concept. On one hand, we have the logical paradoxes that are clearly defined, and
have been subject to thorough analysis7. Further, throughout history, we find paradoxes in the science of physics addressing real world observations. The paradoxes often lead to a crisis in the sciences, but later helped accelerate the main developments
in physics, mathematics and philosophy8. We find paradox in arts and aesthetics as
thought provoking rhetoric to challenge existing frames of normality. Finally, we find
the social paradoxes, where people in social systems experience counter intuitive and
inconsistent feedback that appears to be interrelated, and simultaneously contradictory. The paradoxical experience may lead individuals and organizations to confusion
and paralysis, or it may be a source for driving change and development. The first part
of the paper will discuss the three overall categories of paradoxes: rhetorical paradoxes, logical paradoxes, and social paradoxes. Even though the primary interest lies in
the social paradoxes, their basis in philosophy and logic will be used as a touchstone
in our analysis.
There are two kinds of systems that display enough self-awareness to relate to
paradox in a way described above: individual human minds, and human social systems. In this paper I will concentrate on social systems, as I am interested in understanding how organizations relate to paradoxical situations. We argue that every paradox, regardless of what disciplinary label it would normally wear, can be explained as a
2 | Braathen
Paradox in organizations seen as social complex systems
‘glitch’ in cognitive operations of a complex adaptive system. The glitch happens when
the system confronts areas of an increased environmental complexity, while constituted by a structure that reduces that complexity in an inadequate way. The paradoxical
glitch results from the system’s own cognitive architecture unable to adapt to complexity in the environment. The second part of the paper presents an integrated theory
of how organizations may be seen as social complex adaptive systems with cognitive
operations of observation and coding of distinctions and categories.
The third part of this paper combines, our understanding of paradox, with the description of an organization as a complex adaptive system, to discuss how a paradox
develops from the system’s exposure to increased complexity in its environment. I will
develop a micro-foundation description of how different types of social paradoxes
emerge and are resolved in complex social systems. I will study three categories of
social paradoxes developed by Marianne Lewis in her extensive review of organization
studies of paradox6. The categories are (i) paradoxes of belonging, (ii) paradoxes of
learning, and (iii) paradoxes of organizing.
What is a paradox?
T
he term ‘paradox’ stems from Greek paradoxos, the adjective of paradoxon. It
means ‘contrary to expectation’, a combined word of para, meaning ‘contrary’,
and doxa meaning ‘opinion’. The Merriam-Websters dictionary notes three
meanings of the word – a paradox can be a statement that is seemingly contradictory
or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true; a self-contradictory statement
that at first seems true; or an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises.
Rhetorical paradox
The rhetorical tradition used paradoxical statements actively to awaken the interest of
the reader or listener, to challenge rigid truths, to enlarge the frames of understanding, or to prepare the grounds for innovation and creativity.
Zeno (490-430b.c) was a pre-Socratic philosopher, most known for his paradoxes.
Even though Zeno’s paradoxes were later subject to the study of both metaphysics,
mathematics and logic, they were originally articulated as rhetorical paradox put forward to protect Parmenides’s theory on monoism where change is impossible. His
rhetorical strategy was to utilize the paradox to reduce the question of change to
something absurd and rationally impossible.
E:CO 2016 18(2): 1-27 | 3
Rhetorical paradox was often intended to be amusing. In 1593 Anthony Munday
writes a book ‘Defence of the Contraries’ with a collection of rhetorical paradoxes to
the king where he excuses himself by saying that the book is intended ‘only as an
exercise of wit, in difficult matters’9. One might imagine that the real intention was to
challenge and reframe the frames for accepted ways of thinking. Even though Munday’s paradoxes hardly demonstrated strict logical contradictions, they indirectly addressed the frames existing in common sense, and hence made it possible to focus
and reframe accepted patterns of thinking.
Writers as William Shakespeare frequently used paradox not only to play with
contradictions, but also to expand, challenge, or even disintegrate the individual and
social belief systems that constituted his plays10. As an example, in his play the Twelfth
Night, duke Orsino exclaims, upon seeing the twins Viola and Sebastian, “one face,
one voice, one habit, and two persons, / a natural perspective that is and is not!”. John
Keats called Shakespeare’s ability to create an ambivalence by incorporating two opposing values that are still somehow valid, a negative capability “that is when man is
capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching
after fact and reason”10.
During the nineteen and especially the twentieth century rhetorical paradox lost
its role with the increasing development of formalism in mathematics and logic. Paradox was treated as something to be avoided and something that needed to be solved.
Logical paradox
The logical tradition tries to suppress paradox to avoid ontological distinctions of being and non-being to exist at the same time. This principle of contradiction is articulated in Aristotle’s Metaphysics and still stands as fundamental: a statement cannot
be true and not true at the same time. It is known as the second of the so-called
three classic laws of thought. Quine, a leading logician, has later classified paradoxes
in three overall categories: a veridical paradox, a falsidical paradox, and an antinomy7.
A veridical paradox is something that is strange but yet, surprisingly, true. Quine7
exemplifies this type with the paradox of Frederic, a protagonist of the ‘The Pirates of
Penzance’ comic opera by W.S. Gilbert and A. Sullivan. Frederic is bound to be a pirate
until his 21st birthday. However, being born on the 29th of February, at the age of 21
Frederic has only passed five birthdays. It turns out that he will have to be a pirate
until he is in his eighties. Veridical means ‘truth-telling’: even though the statement at
first appears to be absurd, it defends its logic when investigated more closely. As rare
4 | Braathen
Paradox in organizations seen as social complex systems
as it is, it is possible that ‘a man can be 4n years old on his nth birthday’7. A paradox
of this kind may lead to a discovery of a ‘buried premise of some preconception previously reckoned as central’7, such as the premise that number of birthdays passed is a
reliable indicator of someone’s age.
The falsidical paradox is ‘one whose proposition not only seems at first absurd,
but also is false, there being a fallacy in purported proof’7. There are many famous
paradoxes in this category that have challenged science, philosophy, and mathematics
throughout centuries. Quine’s example is the Barber’s Paradox, described by Bertrand
Russell in 1918: in a village there is a man, a barber, who shaves all and only those
men in the village that do not shave themselves. The question that brings the paradox
alive is: does that barber shave himself? We cannot say so, because he shaves all and
only those men that do not shave themselves. But we get in trouble also if we say that
he does not, because he shaves all and only those men that do not shave themselves.
To solve this paradox we must disprove the barber or the village. There is no such barber, or there is no such village. We need to conclude that an assumption, on which the
paradox rests, is false.
Finally, there are antinomies. The oldest example of this type is the ancient paradox of Epimenides from Crete who said, ‘all Cretans are liars’. If he spoke the truth, he
was lying, and if he was lying, he spoke the truth. Similar to the Barbers Paradox, there
are loopholes to solve Epimenides’ paradox. If we reject that Epimenides were not
always lying (maybe he occasionally told the truth), the paradox might be reduced to
a falsidical paradox instead of an antinomy. However, in a refined and more abstract
version, such as ‘this sentence is false’, a falsification through reduction ad absurdum
is no longer possible: this sentence is true if and only if it is false. If subjected to
accepted ways of reasoning, an antinomy produces a self-contradiction. In Quine’s
characteristics it ‘packs a surprise that can be accommodated by nothing less than a
repudiation of part of our conceptual heritage’7.
Social paradox
Social paradoxes tend to be looser than the logical paradoxes. The opposing terms are
not logical contradictions, but rather in the form of tensions and oppositions between
incompatible positions. Further, whereas logical paradoxes exist independent of time
and in abstract thought, social paradoxes are subject to temporal and spatial constraints in the physical world4. Examples can be found on a cultural level in the western
society where we currently find post-ideological paradoxes as (the drive for individualization): (the need to be part of something larger than ourselves); or a paradox of
E:CO 2016 18(2): 1-27 | 5
progress, i.e. (the more technology we develop to do our work): (the more technology
actually controls our work and us). On an organizational level paradoxical situations
emerge where individuals and groups with inherent dynamics are involved in tensions
and reinforcing cycles at their very core. We try to build teams out of (individualistic)
experts; trying to explore and innovate while exploiting resources to optimize; thinking globally while acting locally; fostering creativity while we increase efficiency; or
trying to be in control when letting go of control seems to be working better.
In one way, paradox has become a modern cliché. The term is used whenever we
have dilemmas or contradictory input from our environment. However, in organization and management research, there are a number of studies that analyze paradox
in organizations to extrapolate the essence of different social paradoxes. M. Lewis reviewed the research of exemplars and derived three categories of paradoxes6. First,
the paradoxes of belonging, that arises from the complex relationship between the
individual and the others. In particular, the tension between the evolution and expression of individuality vs. the function and individuation of the group and its boundaries.
Groups become strong and sustainable only if the individuality of their members is
expressed, however, individual expression potentially initiate and fuels group conflicts,
which provoke a feeling of inclusion and exclusion simultaneously11. Second, the paradoxes of learning, where the organization fail to recognize dramatic changes or increased complexity in its environment, and end up in contradictory and counter-intuitive situations. The current understanding, routines and structures are self-referential,
relying and building upon themselves. They are a consequence of the organization
interacting with the environment over time. The learning paradox rises in the struggle
between the comfort of the past and the uncertainty of the future. Third, we have the
paradoxes of organizing. ‘Paradox of organizing stress conflicting yet simultaneous
demands for control and flexibility…(in) organizational performance, empowerment,
and formalization’6. At the very core of this paradox is the inherent tendency of selforganization in human systems vs. the underlying principle of planning and control in
modern organizations. The paradox rise in the tension between planning, designed
structures and control aimed at increased efficiency and precision, vs. the need for
flexibility, adaptation and change on the other hand. The symptoms may appear as
lack of empowerment, resistance, and confusion in the organization6.
Complex cognizing systems
I
ndividuals experience paradox due to their cognitive abilities and self-awareness.
The question then becomes, do social systems equally ‘experience’ a paradox? To
understand how paradox appear in social systems, and what role ‘cognitive’ pro-
6 | Braathen
Paradox in organizations seen as social complex systems
cesses may play in it, we need an integrated theory of how organizations may be seen
as a complex social system with a set of cognitive operations. Hence, we also need
to address the question of what are the parts, interactions, and laws of interactions,
which together form possible cognitive operations. In the following, I will develop
such description based on existing theory of complex adaptive systems applied to
social systems.
I will not equal cognitive operations in a social system with the cognitive system
of the human mind. However, I will argue that there are collective cognitive processes
performed by human organizations that exceed the mere aggregate of the cognitive
activities performed by their individuals. Further, that social systems are themselves
cognitive agents in their environment with a set of cognitive operations that shows
resemblance of qualities in human cognition12. I will describe the cognitive operations
of a social system in three parts. First, I will start at a broader understanding of cognition that we find in both complex human and social systems—the ongoing process
of sense making. In cognitive science, the enactive cognition approach regards sense
making as the primary cognitive operation13. Sense making is a primary observation
of phenomenon in our environment, transformed into distinctions and the relationship between them. The distinctions and relations between them will gradually evolve
into richer and more complex categories. Second, the ongoing sense-making process,
coding phenomenon of the environment into categories held by the system, has been
argued to initiate a general individuation process of the system14,15. Over time, the
ongoing individuation process will evolve into boundaries between the system and its
environment. Hence, both systems may be seen as closed and self-maintained relative to their environment (Luhmann, 1996). Finally, both human and social systems are
adaptive and autopoetic, seeking to maintain a function and show a ‘willingness’ to
survive16. Hence, both seek to preserve invariance and coherence in their operations
related to their environment. Their cognitive processes are distributed in the system,
and changes in their environment will initiate changes and reorganization of the interactions.
Organizations as social complex systems
The word complex stems from the latin word complectre, meaning to be entwined,
twisted together, or weaved together. The word system has its origins from the Greek
word systema and means a whole compounded by parts. From these two etymological definitions we understand that a complex system consists of parts that are connected so that it is difficult to separate them. The connection between the parts points
to the interrelatedness of the parts. In an organization, the interrelationship implies
E:CO 2016 18(2): 1-27 | 7
interaction between individuals or between an individual and some other resource17,18.
An organization can be seen as a social complex system of interactions; i.e. a set of
connections in the form of a stable pattern of interactions between a variety of individuals19,17,20. What connects us to other people is action of communication, and what
connects us to the physical resources is the action upon them and the communicating
feedback we get.
When we see the organization as an emergent stable pattern of joint activity, we
base our grounding ontology on (inter) action21, and we stand in the tradition of process philosophy22,23. Our model is based on change rather than on qualities of substance in the physical world. From such perspective, the organization is present in the
becoming, rather than in the being. This is parallel to the ontological discussion from
the ancient Greek philosophers debating whether the world is based on matter as
described by the Atomists, or on change and action as promoted by Heraclites. The
latter lead to process philosophy, influencing both theories of evolution25 and how
complex systems of change can form stable structures24.
From a complex systems perspective, the organization exists on multiple levels simultaneously. Each level integrates both constant change and stable structures. This is
all dependent on the scale of perception. We can traverse through the multiple levels,
from the perspective of the entire organization, to divisions, departments and teams.
From close observations on any level we find constant change and patterns of (inter)
actions. From a scale perspective above, the units at levels below appear as static and
stable structures. From a corporate level, a department is referred to as a ‘unit’ with an
input and output, however, a situated study from inside the department will report a
myriad of activity and interaction between people. This is a natural property of structural hierarchies found in all complex systems26.
Boundaries of a social system
On the scale below the social group, we find the individual human being as the constituent part. The human individual is in itself a stable pattern of activity on a biological level of bodily systems, and an embodied mind that we may call a psychic
system. The psychic system is on a qualitatively different level of scale; i.e. of biology
rather than on a social level on which we aim to describe the organization. In the same
manner, interactions of Carbon and Oxygen in molecules are on a level of physical
systems, and therefore left out when aiming to describe biological systems. We may
therefore see the psychic system to be external to the social system itself. The psychic
system becomes a micro-environment for the social system, and following the theo8 | Braathen
Paradox in organizations seen as social complex systems
ries of Nicholas Luhmann, we may say that there is a loose coupling between the psychic system and the social system20. There are certainly mutual influence between the
two, however, the interaction between individuals are part of the social system itself,
whereas the activity in the human embodied mind is on a biological (psychological)
level of scale in the structural hierarchy of reality.
On the other end of the scale of a multileveled hierarchy of an organization, we
find the boundaries between the macro-environment and the organization. Implicit
from our definition of a social complex system, we understand that this it not a physical boundary, and does not follow the topology of formal organizational structures.
In line with the work of Nicholas Luhmann, we may say that the boundary is in its
essence the shared distinctions and categories held by the system. The categories
are created through a process where input from the environment is interpreted by
a shared set of codes into patterns of interaction inside the system. The patterns are
complex sets of (inter) actions that may take on stable forms upheld by continuous
interaction, or as physical or digital structures. Hence, the boundary of the system
becomes a ‘cognitive membrane’27 where challenges presented by the macro or micro
environment evoke patterns of internal communication that are mapped into categories held by the social system.
Distinctions and categories
The challenge from the macro environment will be any type of sign28 or reactant that
the system is able to (re)act with21. The (re) action constitutes the most basic type of
operation whereby the system observes a difference. The difference observed through
the (re) action will introduce a new state in the system. This operation leads the way
for the system to draw a distinction29. The ability to draw a distinction is the fundamental cognitive operation of the social system. The distinction is the basis for all
further development of categories. Distinctions are also the constituent part of the
system’s boundary and ‘coding function’ between phenomenon observed in its environment into internal patterns of (inter) actions.
Following the theories of the mathematician Spencer Brown, we may think of distinctions as an abstract entity, a form, that separates a marked space from an imaginary unmarked space. We may say that the form has an ‘inside’ and an ‘outside’. Inside
the form is the being; outside the form is the non-being. If we draw a simple form as
for example a circle, we may refer to what is inside the circle (the being), and what is
not inside the circle (the non-being). Similarly we may draw the distinction at the being
of an object; e.g., a hammer/not a hammer.
E:CO 2016 18(2): 1-27 | 9
By crossing the border between the inside and the outside, we enter the unmarked
space to the outside of the form that becomes the non-being. Thereby the distinction
being/non-being becomes specifiable. The inside of the form with its positive value of
being, opens up for the possibility of attaching further observations and distinctions
into thicker and more complex units of meaning. We may find that there are distinct
different hammers (e.g., brick hammer, chasing hammer, sledgehammer), used in different contexts (e.g., chiseling bricks, shaping metal jewelry, destruction work). The
inside of any distinction will open up for a possible new distinction to be made, and
thereby introducing a new variety, a new state in the system. Further, the positive
value of the distinction makes it possible for new connections to be made between
new distinctions and actual existing distinctions.
When the system ‘reenters’ the operation of observation, now holding a particular
distinction, it is called recursive. A recursive process uses the results of its own operations as the basis for further operations. Hence, what is undertaken is determined in
part by what has occurred in earlier operations. The recursive process will act as a
confirmation of consistency, where the states of the system that has been produced,
serves as criteria for the acceptance and rejection of further operations29.
If the produced output of the operation is confirmed, the distinction is confirmed.
The product of a (re) action may be reactant in a new (re) action, and sets of reactions interacting with each other may form stable patterns. The patterns ‘condensate’
distinctions into a higher order unit of meaning, whose verification can no longer be
obtained by a single operation30. The recursive nature of the process means that the
system reenters the operation under different situations, different times, and under
different aspects. This leads to further enrichment and a condensed meaning. The
stable structure is what in mathematics is called an eigen-value and corresponds with
an attractor in the system29,31).
In our example of the distinction ‘hammer’, the system may recursively draw new
distinctions of different hammers with poly-contextual connective value. As a complex system of distinctions and connections, they form distinctions on a different level,
indicating the general identity of a hammer (e.g., tool, often with a metal head, attached to a lever). This ‘super-distinction’ is what we may call a category. A category
is a stable complex system of distinctions. The specific stable connections between
distinctions in a category represent a set of constraints compared to all the possible
connections that are not present. We may see a category, in fact any stable system,
as constraints on variety (of the distinctions)33. The variety is given by the set of (inside)
distinctions, and the constraints are given by the connections between distinctions
10 | Braathen
Paradox in organizations seen as social complex systems
made by the system. In our example, sledgehammer is connected to destruction, and
not to jewelry, hence, there is a constraint on the actual connections versus all possible connections between the distinctions. The connection is strengthened by confirmation of the distinctions and connections in the recursive interaction between the
system and environment. Hence, there is a natural complexification process with the
two basic properties of evolution: variety and connection (selection).
The category as an emergent super-system will in itself draw a new type of distinction on the level below. The new distinction is the set of constraints on variety indicated by the category, and is drawn in the imaginary space of all possible constraints
on variety. The outside of this form still represents possibilities in an unmarked space,
e.g., connection between sledgehammer and chiseling bricks. The category is drawn
upon the space spanned by the connections and variety of distinctions, which are internal states created by the system itself. Hence, they do not relate to the ontological
distinction of being/non-being in the physical world. The system’s categories belong
to a closed system ‘separated’ from the environment.
When the system draws a distinction on its own imaginary space of possibilities, it
creates a boundary between the system and the environment. The categories belong
to the closed system of (inter) actions that we may call a social system, distinguished
from both the macro and micro environment. The distinction drawn by a category in
the space of constraints, is a basic operation of self-observation; i.e. the system draws
a distinction on itself. Forming of a category is therefore a first order self-observation.
Structural hierarchies form in complex systems26. New levels of categories as
emergent super-systems will form and constrain the variety of the interconnected categories on the level below. For our simplistic example of the hammer, the initial distinction was drawn for a particular hammer in a particular context. With a recursive
operation of the distinction at different times and contexts, the general category of a
hammer is developed. The interrelatedness to other distinctions of tools and concrete
activities may emerge into a category on the level above, for example of a trade; e.g.,
carpenter or blacksmith. Distinctions of identical activities and skills across trades may
form an even more abstract category: competence. The categories are higher aggregated units of meaning held inside the system itself.
So far, I have discussed (inter) actions evoked in the system as a consequence of
challenges presented by the macro-environment. However, challenges may also be
introduced from the micro-environment, as a result of activity in an individual’s psychic system. From our argument, it follows that the distinction held by the individual
E:CO 2016 18(2): 1-27 | 11
is not the same as the distinction held by the social system. The output of the psychic
system may result in an action (challenge), introduced into the social system, with a
potential following (re) action. Just as for the challenges from the macro-environment
this may initiate a process of drawing new distinctions, and confirming or rejecting
actual distinctions.
Dynamic categories
Dynamic categories are meta-categories of a second order with the ability to alter the
meaning of the categories on the level below. The dynamic categories are a result of a
complexification process where challenges in the environment introduce new variety.
With additional variety, possible new connections increase exponentially. A category
as a stable set of constraints on variety gives meaning for a particular environment. As
the system is exposed to a more complex set of environments, different stable configurations of constraints may be possible. It may even be required in order to serve
and maintain the function of the system. The same category may have slightly different configurations, and thereby meaning, dependent on the environment. The coevolution of categories will seek out new variations of constraints on variety; i.e. changing
the internal structure of constraints.
The variations on the defining constraints are in itself a new type of variety. A
second order distinction and variety is introduced in the system. We may call this a
dynamic category, defined as a constrained variation on the categories. This may for
consistency be defined as a constrained variation on (the constraints on variety). From
this follows that the dynamic category is a category with the ability to alter it’s meaning by applying variation to the connections on the level below. The dynamic category
still emerges from its sub-systems, but can by such process influence and alter its
structure and, thus, meaning. This phenomenon found in complex systems is called a
meta-system transition, proposed by Valentin Turchin, and further developed by Francis Heylighen,32,33.
The dynamic category becomes a second order observation of the system on it
self. The dynamic category can ‘observe’ the system’s own categories by distinguishing between them, and by altering its own internal structure, change its meaning and
identity. A new identity of a category may further have new connective value to other
categories. The complexification process leads to (co) evolution of the structures of
categories and to the systems ability to adapt to its environment.
12 | Braathen
Paradox in organizations seen as social complex systems
Adaptability
Social systems are widely accepted to be of a class called Complex Adaptive Systems
(CAS)34. In essence, complex adaptive systems adapt to changes in its environment to
maintain fitness. Fitness of the system may be viewed both as functional fitness and
structural fitness33. Functional fitness is the ability of the system to perform a function
in its environment including the ability to interact, utilize resources presented, and
co-evolve with other systems. Structural fitness is the internal fitness relating to the
robustness and strength of the connections between parts. The foundation behind a
social system’s drive to seek fitness in its environment, and to uphold its function, is
debated on the basis of Maturana and Varela’s concept of autopoiesis16. Even though
the original concept was introduced with reference to the phenomenon of biological
life from an operational and temporal perspective, sociologists like Luhmann incorporated it later in his theories of social systems. The concept has proven to be useful to
studies of social systems, and in particular developing its interdisciplinary character
through systems theory35.
Adaptation to environment may be seen from two perspectives. First, changes
in the environment may introduce new variety of (re) actions and connections inside
the system. With the introduction of variety and connections the complexity evolves
incrementally to counteract and compensate for perturbations from the environment.
This follows Ashby’s law of requisite variety, where the system needs at least the same
variety of possible actions as the variety of challenges from the environment36. Second, we may see changes in the environment that are too radical, too disruptive and
of a dynamic nature where the system no longer can uphold its function with its present structure. The system itself needs to change its structure of interconnected categories, to reorganize, in order to support the continuity and coherence of the whole.
A real life paradox certainly may present a challenge of this magnitude. The system cannot only adapt incrementally to the situation. It must change its internal structure and architecture. New variety of actions must form new stable patterns of categories held by the system. There is always a risk that the system is unable to find a new
stable state and that it might become unstable and disintegrate.
E:CO 2016 18(2): 1-27 | 13
Micoro foundations of paradox experienced in social
systems
W
ith a description of an organization in terms of a social complex system, I
am now ready to describe the foundations for a paradox experienced by a
social system. I will utilize the three categories of social paradoxes as described above.
Paradox of belonging
All distinctions inherently contain a possible paradox. As we recall, every observation
draws a distinction separating the being from the non-being. As long as we relate
only to the positive value of being, new operations and connections are made. Once
we try to observe both sides of the distinction at once, a paradox appears. This is an
entity without any connective value. Non-being and being exist at the same time. This
implies that all distinctions and knowledge is founded on a paradox where the world
is split into two parts – the marked and unmarked. The unity of the two parts become
a paradox, but unobservable to the system.
The epistemic tradition from Aristotle is based the ontology of being and nonbeing, and therefore the logical duality that follows of conjunction and disjunction.
Objects in the physical world are distinguished apart from anything else. We can observe the hammer without having to refer to a screwdriver or a pair of pliers. This is
the logical principle of ‘tertium non datur’—something is, or is not, and it follows that
the logical domain for this distinction is two-valued37. From our description of a social
system, we described how the system’s distinctions and categories are a particular
configuration of the system itself, and hence, a closed set of interactions to the environment. Hence, a two-value distinction of the same phenomenon drawn by two
different systems, may be the same but not identical. Here I utilize the established
logical distinction between sameness and identity. For example the ‘hammer’ is the
same category for two observing systems, however the true identity of the hammer
is contingent on the contexturality of the observing system. ‘The ultimate identity is
confined by the contexturality in which it originates’37.
Categories held by the system are more complex structures of sub-categories
(distinctions). A more complex category is often made with reference to another category: up/down, left/right, positive/negative, hot/cold. Hence, the more complex categories include forms that do not comply with the two-value logical domain of being/
non-being. As discussed, the categories are internal forms constraining all possible
14 | Braathen
Paradox in organizations seen as social complex systems
states of the system, and are distributed and inherent in the system. For distributed
systems many values are possible in the operations between categories. Gotthard
Günther calls these operations transjunctions. Transjunctions are neither conjunctions
nor disjunctions of being, but rather relative positive/negative distinctions made on a
higher level of complexity. Transjunctional operations may accept or reject a connection between categories, and hence search for other connections or other distinctions
to alter it38.
This may lead to social paradoxes, and in particular a paradox of belonging. The
categories and transjunctional operations have a specific identity and meaning in the
social system. The polycontexural nature of the individual vs the social system means
that the individual develops the same category, however not with the same identity. A
specific situation revealing new complexity in the environment, can waken the paradox and make visible what was before invisible because of ‘sameness’ of the distinctions drawn by the systems.
We may use the example given above of Frederic in the Pirates of Penzance. The
’21st birthday’ acts as a category of the social system of the pirate band; it has been
formulated as an indenture of Frederic’s apprenticeship. For such a social system Frederic’s rare date of birth presented an opportunity – and the opportunity has been
taken to attain a valuable human resource. The paradoxical situation occurs when
the category ’21st birthday’ held by the indenture in the pirate band ‘collides’ with
the category ‘21st birthday’ held by Frederic in his psychic system. The categories are
the same, however as they are confined by the contexturality in which they originate,
they are not identical. The particular communication of the pirate band, the indenture,
mapping a particular aspect of the band’s environment, a person’s age, is attempted
unified with the expectation produced in another system, Frederic’s mind. The expectation had its merits, being based on experience of the mind witnessing operations of
other social systems using the same system of language: where ’21st birthday’ normally responds to ’21 years old’. From Frederic’s point of view the transjunction between the two identities of the category ‘21st birthday’ must be rejected, even though
the ontological question of their being would be accepted and confirmed by both
systems respectively.
The veridical paradoxes between individual psychic systems and collective social
systems happen when the meaning-processing components of social systems remain
faithful to their ‘rules of production’ of categories; however surprising to the individual
psychic systems, the identity of the categories are revealed as contradictory to the
‘same’ categories held by the individual. It does not feel right to people, but it is, nev-
E:CO 2016 18(2): 1-27 | 15
ertheless, consistent with the internal logic of the systems they construct. We can only
imagine that there had been interactions between Frederic and other members of the
pirate band about the indenture. The pattern of communication upheld the ‘sameness’ of the categories and only continued to make the paradox invisible. The new
situation required the unity of the two identities of the category ‘21st birthday’, and so
the paradox became visible.
Paradox of learning
A different class of organizational paradox, the learning paradox, emerges when beliefs or assumptions fail to keep up with the external changes39. Beliefs and assumptions are formed through the recursive evolutionary process forming a complex system of categories, and the learning paradox emerges as a belief system is exposed to
increased complexity in the environment.
Learning paradoxes emerge when organizations ignore dramatic changes in their
environment, and lack ‘the ability to frame new knowledge within understandings,
routines, and structures that enable actors to comprehend and adjust to variations’6.
The paradoxical tension reveals the need for learning, for reframing existing beliefs,
and for the evolution of new sets of categories. Feedback from the environment might
appear contradictory to the intended result of the action. There are a multitude of
organizational studies of learning paradox6. As an example, Lenoard-Barton40, found
that the more one focused on ‘core capabilities’, the more it would invoke their flip
side, ‘core rigidness’. The inertia of the organization’s patterns of actions and routines
were stronger than the ‘cognitive ability’ to adapt to a new category demanded by the
environment. In another study, Philip Streatfield analyzed post merger integrations,
and how existing understanding of the category ‘managing’, hence ‘being in control’,
lead to states of ‘not being in control’, whereas deliberate new strategies of ‘releasing
control’ could lead to a state of ‘being in control’3. The learning paradoxes fueled selfreferential cycles with potential organizational paralysis and decline6.
The first example of a learning paradox can be found 500 years b.c. when Hippasos, the follower of Phytagoras, studied geometry. The Phytagorean’s belief system
was based on ratios of natural numbers. They would find the ratios governing structure in nature, in possible constructions, and in musical harmonies. The confirmation
of the categories was so strong that the Phytagoreans thought of ratios and natural
numbers as an expression of God and was linked to a divine experience. Hippasos’
discovery showed that the sides and diagonal of a square are incommensurable; i.e. it
is impossible to measure the length of the diagonal in units of the sides of the square.
16 | Braathen
Paradox in organizations seen as social complex systems
By this he brought the paradox to life—stating that the ratios of natural numbers (and
a true divine proof of God’s existence), is impossible (and hence false) for any geometric figure with a square. Almost 2000 years passed before the paradox of Hippasos
was resolved with irrational numbers, more specifically the discovery that the root of
the number 2 is irrational.
The paradox of Hippasos was both a falsidical paradox and a learning paradox.
It was falsidical since it was based on a false assumption that all numbers must be
rational. What seemed to be an antinomy paradox turned out to be falsidical by eliminating the constraints on the category of numbers and of ratios. As Quine points
out—‘one man’s antinomy is another man’s falsidical paradox, give or take a couple
of thousand years’7. Further, it was a learning paradox as the beliefs, and hence, epistemic categories had evolved inside a social system of the Phytagorean, and failed to
keep up with new external discoveries. 2000 years of development makes it easy for us
to see how the Phytagoreans had developed categories that were internal and ‘closed’
from reality, and that were ‘self maintained’ by their confirmation of nature through
mathematics. Hippasos’s findings awakened the paradox by introducing a distinction
based on increased complexity observed in geometry.
From our description of an organization as complex social systems, we remember
that the social system was defined as a stable set of (inter) actions. The system would
(re) act with challenges presented by the environment, further resulting in distinctions
being drawn. Categories would emerge as stable super-systems of connected distinctions (constrained varieties of distinctions). The distinction (and category) is confirmed
and strengthened through the system’s recursive (inter) action with its environment,
and hence, the system interprets and codes the complexity of the environment into
an internal system of categories with reduced complexity. The categories (as systems)
are closed and self maintained which means that they are sustained as invariant structure in spite of a constant dynamic process of (re) actions. In formal reaction theory,
it is possible to show that the category as a stable set of closed and self-maintained
(re) actions, correlate with eigenvalues and attractors found in complex systems41. The
attractor is a stationary regime of activity where the distinctions (and their strength)
and connections between them have stabilized. The attractor is a sub set of the state
space (set of all possible states of a complex system) that the system will evolve towards, and an attractor is often referred to as an equilibrium point for the system. In
summary, a category acts as an attractor in the social system, and as part of a dynamic
equilibrium of the system.
E:CO 2016 18(2): 1-27 | 17
A complex system with an attractor can in principle be expressed as a set of formal
statements (differential equations), where specific solutions are represented by functions describing the evolution of the system. As discussed above, the continuous process (complex set of reactions) upholding a category is of such nature. For illustrative
purposes, I will describe the process as an interpretation function. The interpretation
function takes challenges from the environment, that we will call signs (s), combined
with existing categories (c) in the system, and returns a ‘state’ of recognition for the
category. When the system recognizes the signs, and codes them into an existing category, the interpretation function I(s, c)=0 meaning that the category is stable and in
an equilibrium. When signs from the environment changes, a new state is introduced
in the system (category), the interpretation function returns a state where I(s,c)/=0.
The category is not immediately recognized.
When the system is out of equilibrium, we may see two alternative developments.
First, new variety of distinctions is introduced as new states in the system. Some connective value of the distinctions may be selected, thus constraining the variety. This
may be the start of a new category evolving as described above. Second, we may see
that the system tries to stay in homeostasis where it is ‘pulled back’ into the attractor and equilibrium of the category. The new signs/challenges from the environment
is not forming a new category, but rather ‘enriches’ the existing category with more
complexity. This will require the interpretation function (and hence indirectly the category) to change as the system recursively faces the set of altered challenges.
We may illustrate this in very simplistic terms, utilizing a phase plane method were
we map the category as an attractor with the imaginary interpretation function I(s, c).
The phase plane is the set of all possible states of a dynamical system and is spanned
by the state variables, a set of time, and a rule for evolution. The phase plane portrait
is a graphical illustration where the possible trajectories of the system are mapped. For
our simplistic example with an illustrative purpose, the two dimensional state space is
spanned by the interpretation function I(s, c) and the change in the interpretation
function dI/dt(s, c).
In our first example, the system stays in homeostasis after the system (re) act with
new challenges from the environment. Initially the interpretation function will return
I(s,c)/=0 as the system encounter new challenges in the interaction with its environment, represented by the point I0 (Figure 1). The system’s (re) actions will start to
change as a consequence and hence also the change in I(s, c). We see this as an arc
moving towards the center representing the equilibrium where the challenges are interpreted to ‘match’ the category. The new challenges are ‘integrated’ into the inter-
18 | Braathen
Paradox in organizations seen as social complex systems
Figure 1 Homeostasis, enriching the distinction
pretation and mapping between challenge and category. The trajectory shows one
potential evolution of the system towards a stable equilibrium. The equilibrium is reinstated when the interpretative coding function comes back with I(s, c)=0 and the
change in categories and the interpretation function will come to a halt.
If we follow the same line of reasoning, we may see how a paradox emerges (figure 2 a, b). Let’s assume again that the system is exposed to new challenges from the
environment that leads to a new state I0. Again the system (and the interpretation
function) changes following a trajectory in the state space. Following the trajectory
from I0 we see that I(s, c) changes and tries to adapt, however, unable to reach the
equilibrium in I1. Rather, at point I1, we see that the interpretation of the challenges
map the category in the system, however, the momentum of change is at its maximum. The system must follow a trajectory in state space and in our example below
approaches I2, the other side and the ‘antithesis’, of the state at I0. Since the state of
I(s, c) is now at its maximum distance from the equilibrium, however in the opposite
direction, the process starts again. The coding function and categories are changing
gradually to the other side again.
E:CO 2016 18(2): 1-27 | 19
a
b
Figure 2 Paradox and spiraling dialectics
We may see two potential patterns that both are well documented behavior of
complex systems; i.e. a spiral trajectory back to the equilibrium, or a limit cycle that
would constitute the paradox. For the spiraling trajectory, the system will gradually
dampen the paradox. We find this behavior of systems in Hegelitarian dialectics where
the thesis, antithesis and synthesis evolves back to an equilibrium where balance is
found and where new challenges in the environment has brought new complexity and
quality to the category. The equilibrium and attractor of the system has also evolved,
however, not depicted in our simplistic illustration below.
The other possibility is that the system remains to oscillate in a perpetual movement in a limit cycle around the attractor. The system has a paradoxical experience as
the state of the ‘thesis’ consequently brings it into the state of the ‘antithesis’. Hence,
the organization’s own belief system, based on its own categories, appears to be inconsistent and directly contradictory. As we see, this is a time dependent evolution
in the system’s own state space that is closed and self maintained. The system is not
experiencing any ontological paradox in the environment, but rather, is exposed to
increased complexity from the environment leading to limit cycles in its own system
of categories.
We see how the learning paradoxes of Lenoard-Barton and Phillip Streatfield (introduced above) can be described in this model. In both examples the organization
was exposed to increased complexity in the environment. The complexity of a merger
between two corporations challenged the category of ‘management’, ‘being in control’; in the other example, the strive for competitive advantage required a redefinition
of the category ‘competence’ into a more subtle distinction of ‘core competence’. By
20 | Braathen
Paradox in organizations seen as social complex systems
applying ‘management being in control’ (the existing category of control held by the
organization) there was a feeling of ‘not being in control’, and ‘not being in control’
(letting go of ‘control’) would lead back to a notion of ‘being in control’. Similarly, the
focus on ‘core competence’ would lead to ‘rigidness’, contradictory to the intention
to gain competitive advantage through increased flexibility of combined specialized
competence. In both situations the application of existing categories to the environment of increased complexity, resulted in new states of the systems that appeared.
By observing the difference, however, upholding existing patterns of (inter) actions,
routines and structures, the organization arrived a contradictory state. The recursive
observation of the ‘difference’ with the continuous inertia of existing patterns of (inter)
action lead to a limit cycle in the system’s own state space.
Since, learning paradoxes are based on non-valid categories, they are by reason
falsidical paradoxes in logics. Hence, the paradoxes are resolved, either by an evolution of categories to integrate increased complexity, or to reject the category. In the
example of Hippasos, the category of ‘numbers’ was eventually expanded to include
irrational numbers, a more complex category that could map the challenge of commensurability between the sides and the diagonal. Simultaneously, the category of
‘God’ as ‘ratios of natural numbers’ has been rejected, hence, solving the paradox. In
the literature of exemplars, multiple methods of resolving learning paradox have been
proposed that resonates with the understanding that might be derived from the description above.
Paradox of organizing
In the last two sections we could see how the paradox of belonging correlates with
the class of veridical paradoxes in logic, and that the learning paradox correlates with
the falsidical paradoxes. What the paradoxes of belonging and paradoxes of learning
have in common, is the foundation in the system’s own internal structure of categories. It is the system’s ‘epistemic’ interpretation of the environment to its own closed
and self maintained system of categories that creates the paradoxical experience.
For the last class of social paradoxes, the paradox of organizing, this is slightly
different. The paradox stems from the very nature of two types of organizing; i.e. the
self-organization, and the designed structured organization. The self-organization is
based purely on (inter) actions in the social system. The individuals choose to interact
to achieve their own and common interests, and the evolving system is a product of
selection and fitness between them. The social ordering, and hence the organization,
emerges with structural properties that channel individual activity. The individuals are
E:CO 2016 18(2): 1-27 | 21
free, purposeful agents, yet the organizational social structure constrains their actions.
Actions will facilitate structure; structure will facilitate actions.
In a formally designed organization, the structure is constituted by power of authority, hierarchy, shared rules, and physical infrastructure as buildings and networks.
Traditionally, the ontological assumptions about organizational structures, are that
they are concrete objects4. However, based on fundamental action ontology they
might just as well be stable structures (i.e. systems) of actions. It would for example
be just as legitimate to argue that a database held in a computer system is based on
(inter) actions of electrical current, referred to as bits and bytes, as it is a matter of
substance.
In self-organizing systems, control upholding its function and coherence is inherent and distributed in the system itself31. In a designed organizational structure, the
management acts as the controller. The management will, based on the owner’s intention, design and seek to enforce structures in the organization. The management’s
communicative action would either introduce distinctions, or enforce connections between agents, hence constraining the total potential variety;—‘the very action(s) of
organizing involve the drawing of distinctions; organization itself is a source of tension’42. We end up with two types of categories (distinctions) in the system. On one
hand, the categories imposed by the management, conceived in their smaller system
of the management team or in the psychic system of an individual, and expressed as
communication in the organization. On the other hand, categories held by the organization as a result of interaction with the environment where observations lead to
patterns of communicative (inter) actions.
Under stable conditions, formal organizing categories and categories of self-organization are complimentary, in equilibrium, and part of a complex structural hierarchy.
For example in traditional industrial production, the core management principle was
to reduce cost per unit by division and specialization of work. Complex tasks were
broken down into sub-tasks by a classic Newtonian method. The self-organization
would appear as ‘niches’ in the formal structure, where individuals came together to
interact. Routines as stable patterns of interaction would emerge, and both formal capabilities and informal social structures would evolve.
The industrial model was challenged by more complex demands from the environment. The established frame that customers want the mass-produced and cheapest product changed. Instead there was a demand for individualized products, bespoke to specific requirements, accompanied by a set of services; while still requiring
22 | Braathen
Paradox in organizations seen as social complex systems
that the price remained low. We know that new organizing management principles
were needed and introduced. Examples may be: modularization; flexibility and speed
in reconfiguration of production lines; self organizing teams; lean production; total
quality management; just in time delivery models; service as a product, etc. The development would accentuate opposing forces coexisting within the existing formal
structure of the organization. The existing frame would promote efficiency and cost
reduction through exploitation of resources, while the new paradigm would require
additional flexibility and innovation through exploration43. The principles of lean production, TQM, and just in time delivery models, would encourage the employee’s discretion and problem solving, while at the same time require new and more extensive
systems of monitoring and statistical control44,6.
Hence, the paradox of organizing has elements of both paradox of belonging and
paradox of learning as described above. First, there is a ‘collision’ between categories from different systems similar to a paradox of belonging. The categories of management originate inside the system of management, and while communicated and
agreed, the organization does not necessarily hold the same meaning in the (inter)
action based self-organized system. The categories are the same, however, not identical. New challenges in the environment might awaken the differences and hence the
paradox. Recently, I witnessed such paradox in a larger organization in the oil and gas
industry. In the present crisis in the industry (2016), new delivery models are needed
and existing methods are challenged. The category in question was ‘the management
system’, and whether it is a representation, and an aggregated description of how
the organization work; or if it is a prescriptive process of how the organization should
work. Fundamental, questions regarding the category of ‘a management system’ resulted in tension and paradoxical ‘loops’ in the argument. The previous decade of stable growth and condition in the industry had created equilibrium, where the category
held by the systems was the ‘same’, however not ‘identical’.
Second, we also find elements of a learning paradox. The environment appears
with new challenges and complexity that are observed by the system. The system
is unable to process new challenges into existing categories, and enters into a limit
cycle in its own internal system of categories. In our example above the category of
‘mass-produced’ correlated with an organizing principle of ‘cost efficiency, scale and
repetition’, whereas ‘customized’ would require ‘bespoke solutions and dedication to
the individual customer’. With more complex demands from the market, the category
‘mass-produced’ evolved into ‘mass produced and customized’. The organizational
actions, routines and structures would need to change to incorporate new organizational principles that could integrate ‘cost efficiency with flexibility and change’. New
E:CO 2016 18(2): 1-27 | 23
and more complex systems of categories are needed that can ‘absorb’ the contradictions, and create the necessary new distinction with new connective value, enabling
the system to proceed. In our example of the mass vs. customized production, such
category may for example have been ‘modularity’. Modularity has enabled standardization of smaller building blocks while emphasizing the possible number of combinations that promotes the uniqueness of the whole. Hence, the paradox of organizing
is the social equivalence of the antimony paradox of the logical paradoxes. It requires
the system, not only to adapt its categories, however also to change its internal architecture of cognitive processing. New dimensions and degrees of freedom in the
imaginary space of categories are needed.
Summary
T
he present paper has proposed to describe organizations as complex social systems with cognitive operations to understand how social paradoxes emerge.
The cognitive processes are limited compared to the psychic system of the individual human being. By defining the organizations based on action ontology, we
were able to utilize theory of complex systems to describe cognitive operations of the
social system. We discussed how the system interacts with challenges presented by
the environment, and how change in the system’s state results in distinctions being
drawn. Categories would emerge as stable super-systems of connected distinctions.
The categories are confirmed and strengthened through the system’s recursive (inter)
action with its environment, so that the system interprets and codes the complexity of
the environment into an internal system of categories with reduced complexity. Finally
we discussed how, the categories are closed and self-maintained, sustained as invariant structure in spite of a constant dynamic process of (re) actions, and act as attractors in the system.
With the model of an organization as an action-based complex social system at
hand, we could study the three categories of social paradoxes: paradox of belonging, paradox of learning and paradox of organizing. Each type of social paradox was
described through the integrated model of a complex social system and through reallife examples. Comparisons and parallels were drawn to the logical and philosophical
paradox. We were able to see how the social paradoxes arise as the organizations
encounter increased environmental complexity, while equipped with an information
processing architecture, which reduces that complexity in an inadequate way. We concluded that paradox is a result of a social system’s cognitive adaptation process.
24 | Braathen
Paradox in organizations seen as social complex systems
The paradox will not resolve from a repetitive, more focused, or a more comprehensive processing done by the same system architecture. The system needs to alter
and reorganize its set of categories to process aspects of the environment that are
not being related to appropriately. This may include enrichment and altering of ‘false’
categories, or it may involve reorganization of the internal structure of the cognitive
operations of the system. This will include cognitive operations by the system, on the
system itself.
Our hyper competitive and dynamic environment will continue to evoke paradoxical situations in organizations with equally increasing intricacy, ambiguity and diversity. Much of contemporary organizational theory is still struggling to live with, and
moreover understand, paradoxes. I have argued that a trans-disciplinary approach of
complex systems theory, theory of evolution, and cognitive science, may contribute
to understand the dynamics of paradox in organizations. Further, I hope that practitioners may find support in theoretical distinct concepts in helping them translate
principles of management and organizing into real-life organizations.
References
1. Cameron, K.S., and Quinn, R.E. (1988). “Organizational paradox and transformation,” in
R.E. Quinn and K.S. Cameron (eds.), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of
Change in Organization and Management, ISBN 9780887301568, pp. 1-18.
2. Smith, W. and Lewis, M. (2011). “Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium
model of organizing,” Academy of Management Review, ISSN 1930-3807, 36(2): 381-403.
3. Streatfield, P. J. (2001). The Paradox of Control in Organizations, ISBN 9780415250313.
4. Poole, M.S., and Van de Ven, A.H. (1989). “Using paradox to build management and
organization theories,” Academy of Management Review, ISSN 1930-3807, 14(4): 562-78.
5. Handy, C. (1995). The Age of Paradox, ISBN 9780875846439.
6. Lewis, M.W. (2000). “Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide,” Academy
of Management Review, ISSN 1930-3807, 25(4): 760-76.
7. Quine, W.V. (1961). “The ways of paradox,” Scientific American, ISSN 0036-8733, 206.
8. Al-Khalili, J. (2013). Paradox: The Nine Greatest Enigmas in Physics, ISBN 9780307986795.
9. Vickers, B. (1968). “King Lear and renaissance paradoxes,” The Modern Language Review,
ISSN 0026-7937, 63(2): 305-14.
10. Platt, P.G. (2013). Shakespeare and the Culture of Paradox, ISBN 9781409475156.
11. Smith, K.K., and David N.B. (1987). “A paradoxical conception of group dynamics,” Human
Relations, ISSN 1741-282X, 40(10): 633-57.
12. Lenartowicz, M., Weinbaum, D.R., and Braathen, P. (2016). “Social systems: Complex
adaptive loci of cognition,” http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/papers/ECCO-WorkingPapers.html.
E:CO 2016 18(2): 1-27 | 25
13. Di Paolo E., Rohde M., and De Jaegher, H. (2010). Horizons For The Enactive Mind: Values,
Social Interaction And Play, ISBN 9780262014601.
14. Weinbaum, D., and Viktoras, V. (2015). “Open ended intelligence: the individuation
of intelligent agents,” http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ECCO/ECCO-papers/LenartowiczLociofCognition.pdf.
15. Simondon, G. (1992). “The genesis of the individual,” in J. Crary and S. Kwinter (eds.),
Incorporations, ISBN 9780942299298, pp. 296-319.
16. Maturana, H.R., and Varela, F.J. (1991). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the
Living, ISBN 9789400989474.
17. Winter, S.G. (2013). “Habit, deliberation, and action: strengthening the microfoundations
of routines and capabilities,” The Academy of Management Perspectives, ISSN 1943-4529,
27(2): 120-37.
18. Braathen, P. (2015). “Capabilities as evolution of complexity in social systems,” http://
pespmc1.vub.ac.be/papers/ECCO-WorkingPapers.html.
19. Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life, ISBN 9780471080305.
20. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems, ISBN 9780804726252.
21. Heylighen, F. and Beigi, S. (2016). “Mind outside brain: a radically non-dualist foundation
for distributed cognition,” http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/papers/Non-dualism.pdf.
22. Whitehead, A.N. (2010). Process and Reality, ISBN 9781439118368.
23. Rescher, N. (2000). Process Philosophy: A Survey of Basic Issues, ISBN 9780822961284.
24. Prigogine, I. (1984). Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature, ISBN
9780006541158.
25. Darwin, C. (2003). The Origins of Species: 150Th Anniversary Edition, ISBN
9781592242863.
26. Simon, H.A. (1962). “The architecture of complexity,” Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, ISSN 0003-049X, 106: 467-482.
27. Lenartowicz, M. (2015). “Mere impediments? A second thought on the role of social
boundaries in self-organization of the global collective intelligence on the Earth,”
Proceedings of the ISIS Summit Vienna 2015.
28. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology,
Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology, ISBN 9780226039053.
29. Foerster, H.V. (1984). Observing Systems, ISBN 9780914105190.
30. Luhmann, N., and William R. (2002). Theories of Distinction: Redescribing the Descriptions
of Modernity, ISBN 9780804741231.
31. Ashby, W.R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics, ISBN 9781614277651.
32. Turchin, V.F. (1995). “A dialogue on metasystem transition,” World Futures: The Journal of
General Evolution, ISSN 0260-4027, 45(1-4): 5-57.
26 | Braathen
Paradox in organizations seen as social complex systems
33. Heylighen, F. (1995). “(Meta) systems as constraints on variation: A classification and
natural history of metasystem transitions,” World Futures: Journal of General Evolution,
ISSN 0260-4027, 45(1-4): 59-85.
34. McQuade, T.J., and Butos, W.N. (2009). “The Adaptive Systems Theory of Social Orders,”
Studies in Emergent Order, 2: 76-108.
35. Cadenas, H., and Arnold, M. (2015). “The autopoiesis of social systems and its criticisms,”
Constructivists Foundation, ISSN 1782-348X, 10(2): 169-176.
36. Ashby, W.R. (1958). “Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex
systems,” Cybernetica, ISSN 0011-4227, 1: 83-99.
37. Günther, G. (2004). “Life as polycontexturality,” Vordenker, ISSN 1619-9324, Feb.
38. Günther, G. (1967). “Time, timeless logic and self-referential systems,” Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, ISSN 1749-6632, 138(2): 396-406.
39. Cannon, Tom. (1996). Welcome to the Revolution, ISBN 9780273620495.
40. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). “Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing
new product development,” Strategic Management Journal, ISSN 1097-0266, 13(S1): 11125.
41. Dittrich, P., and Speroni, di F. (2007). “Chemical organization theory,” Bulletin of
Mathematical Biology, ISSN 1522-9602, 69(4): 1199-1231.
42. Ford, J.D., and Robert W.B. (1988). “Organizational Change in and out of Dualities and
Paradox,” in R.E. Quinn and K.S. Cameron (eds.), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a
Theory of Change in Organization and Management, ISBN 9780887301568, pp. 8-121.
43. March, J.G. (1991). “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning,” Organization
Science, ISSN 1526-5455, 2(1): 71-87.
44. Eisenhardt, K., and Westcott, B.J. (1988). “Paradoxical demands and the creation of
excellence: The case of just-in-time manufacturing,” in R.E. Quinn and K.S. Cameron
(eds.), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and
Management, ISBN 9780887301568, pp. 169-194.
45. Dittrich, P., and Lars W. (2008). “Chemical organizations in a toy model of the political
system,” Advances in Complex Systems, ISSN 0219-5259, 11(04): 609-27.
46. Dosi, G., Richard N., and Sidney W. (2001). The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational
Capabilities, ISBN 9780199248544.
47. Heylighen, F. (1999). “The growth of structural and functional complexity during
evolution,” The Evolution of Complexity, ISBN 9780792357650, pp. 17-44.
48. Heylighen, F., Shima B., and Tomas V. (2015). “Chemical organization theory as a universal
modeling framework for interaction, self-organization, and autopoiesis,” http://pespmc1.
vub.ac.be/Papers/COT-applicationsurvey.pdf.
49. Spencer-Brown, G. (1994). The Laws of Form, ISBN 9780963989901.
50. Turchin, V.F., and Brand F. (1977). The Phenomenon of Science, ISBN 9780231039833.
E:CO 2016 18(2): 1-27 | 27
Viewing WIL in business
schools through a new lens:
Moving to the edge of chaos with
complexity theory
Applied
Laura Rook
Darwin University, AUS
Laura Rook is a Management Lecturer in the Business School at Charles Darwin University. Dr Rook
currently lectures in the areas of change management, business research, workplace ethics and
work-integrated learning. Her research interests are organizational learning and development, workintegrated learning, curriculum development, change management and the application of complexity
theory to organizations.
Lisa McManus
Charles Darwin University, AUS
Lisa McManus is the Professor of Accounting and the Associate Dean of Research and Research Training
for the Faculty of Law, Education, Business and Arts at Charles Darwin University. Lisa has published in
a number of high quality international research journals in various areas but particularly focused on
performance measurement and management.
Employers require well rounded work-ready graduates with the skills to adapt to
a contemporary workplace. Australian universities are responding to these needs
through the implementation of Work-integrated Learning (WIL) programs aimed at
providing students with the necessary skills, knowledge and attributes employers
seek. This paper describes a study of Work-integrated Learning programs in the
Human Resource Management (HRM) discipline at a number of Australian business
schools. Exploratory interviews were undertaken with a range of stakeholders and
examined within a complexity theory lens. The findings suggest that WIL is viewed
as a threat to the role of higher education rather than an opportunity. There is
increased interdependence and vulnerability within universities and as universities
struggle for resources to respond to uncertainties in their ecosystem, they are
being forced into making short term changes rather than co-evolving with their
environment. By looking at the connectedness and evolutionary properties of the
universities involved in the study, a number of recommendations are suggested
to encourage universities to move to the edge of chaos, where a university’s full
potential can be realized. Complexity theory provides a new way for viewing the
intricacies of higher education course development and provides an argument for
28 | Rook & McManus
Viewing WIL in business schools through a new lens
universities to create enabling conditions to co-evolve with the ever changing and
complex world we live in.
Introduction
H
igher education in Australia is being re-shaped in order to provide work-ready
graduates sought by employers1,2. Higher education institutions in Australia are
currently being influenced by not only by the recent changes in Government
funding policies, but also by employers and students. Australian Business Schools are
under pressure to perform and provide graduates and research that closes the gap
between education, research and practice in the ever changing and turbulent business
environment3.
Current WIL research in the business area (of which HRM is a subset) reports that
business schools are not providing graduates that are ready to “hit the ground running” with the necessary skills to contribute to the workplace upon graduation4,5. As
such, business schools, are developing WIL, in an effort to fill the gap in skills, work
readiness and essential character development that graduates are currently lacking4,5.
In these turbulent times of change WIL programs can provide “…universities with an
opportunity to offer a best product that students will appreciate as a pay-off for their
investment that will enhance their branding and will attract students by re-marketing
of their traditional academic courses as vocationally oriented courses”6:7.
WIL not only offers universities an opportunity to share knowledge and experience across disciplines7, it also offers universities a means for responding to the needs
of employers and students for more work-ready relevant material to be embedded
into the degrees offered. The link between WIL programs and increased employability
for students is forcing universities to compete in their offerings of WIL activities. This
is an opportunity for WIL to be a major differentiator for business schools to compete
by developing innovative ways of attracting students by meeting both their learning
and career needs8.
The application of complexity theory in organizational research is a relatively new
area. Complexity theory is useful in understanding complex behavior in human social systems and relevant to this study, presents a unique way of understanding the
stakeholder relationships and motivations in the development of WIL programs. Principles of complexity are generic in that they are common to all natural complex systems9. However, the nature and context of the complex system needs to be taken into
account when using complexity theory to analyze complex phenomenon. Applying
E:CO 2016 18(2): 28-54 | 29
complexity theory to a human complex evolving system provides a unique way of
viewing patterns of interaction and the relationships in each university within the context of developing WIL programs.
This paper begins with a brief overview of the literature in regards to WIL. This is
followed by a description of the research methodology and then the analysis is presented and discussed. Finally, in conclusion the paper identifies the implications of the
research and some potential ways forw…