Comments for Complexity & Management Centre

Comment on About this blog by Esther

Esther — Mon, 20 May 2013 10:46:30 +0000

Hi there, are you on twitter? Would really appreciate a central place for CMS.

Comment on Responding to Complexity and Uncertainty: The Agile Organisation by Sascha Reimann

Sascha Reimann — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 20:33:34 +0000

Interesting article. I am about to join the DMan community and I currently face a lot of questions what this programme is about, what complexity-driven organisation science (COS) delivers (added value?) and in how far it responds to the shortcomings of traditional organisation science which I would like to identify with the models of especially Taylor (Scientific Mgt), Weber and Fayol etc. Being in the beginning of my studies, I currently see COS as the response to static-mechanistic views of organisations – an organisation chart is maybe exactly the best description of what I mean with mechanistic, as it can be easily confused with a circuit diagram and people drawing these charts may have exactly that understanding of organisations. “Agility” is maybe a good headline for everything COS might develop as practical guidance for management, on the other side, there are a lot of other buzzwords for this philosophy, like grass roots leadership, dynamic capabilities and even “delegation”, “empowerment”, intrapreneurship, delayering and so on. In how far is the “Agile Organisation” different?

Comment on Repetitive Patterns of Communication: Thought Collectives and Thought Styles by Stephen wagener

Stephen wagener — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:16:07 +0000

Thanks for the insights, I have often wondered why the complexity management crowd are not making much of an impact on the dominant rule of King Schedule in Cubicle City.

Complexity theory can be tough going, there are plenty of complex models to understand complexity, it takes effort to learn a new academic language and practice new ideas in a rigid world. A deep dive into the Sea of Complexity, from a specialist domain is difficult, there is so much to learn and a lot of debate about the finer points.

This is the weakness in complexity management theory. The other hindrance is that old-style training in rigid academic methods has inoculated many against complexity science. Work experience in command and control land gives them a regular booster shot, and now they have lifetime immunity to new ideas.

Back to complexity thinking. Thanks to this article I have now learned that systems thinking versus complex responsive process is the debate that keeps us swirling in disagreement. How are we ever going to influence command and control land if we have such deep divisions on our own ‘side’

Comment on Responding to Complexity and Uncertainty: The Agile Organisation by Ari-Pekka Skarp

Ari-Pekka Skarp — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:54:09 +0000

I just wrote a post where I study Agile Organization as a part of protest wave challenging modernist thinking. I argue it reflects the change of society which is moving towards postmodernism.

http://fractalsauna.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/postmodernism-in-organization/

Comment on Responding to Complexity and Uncertainty: The Agile Organisation by Postmodern Organizations – Agile Protest Wave « Fractal Sauna

Postmodern Organizations – Agile Protest Wave « Fractal Sauna — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:50:52 +0000

[...] D. Stacey wrote an excellent analysis of Agile organizations. He concluded that Agile was just another name for decentralization and empowerment. However, Agile [...]

Comment on More thoughts on Critical Management Studies by Chris Mowles

Chris Mowles — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 21:36:54 +0000

Hi John,
probably you and I are coming at this from different perspectives. I am not sure that I would agree with you that ‘asynchronous power relationships..prevent creativity and healthy dissonance’ firstly because I think power is always unequal and secondly because I think that power both enables and constrains. I am not sure what you mean by ‘healthy’ dissonance, unless you mean disagreement that we think we want, or disagreement that is not too disruptive. From your comment and from you blog it seems as though you think managers/consultants have more control over interactions between people than I do.
Chris

Comment on More thoughts on Critical Management Studies by johnthornburn

johnthornburn — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 03:23:20 +0000

Chris, I found your post be engaging and helpful in my search for truth. I am somewhat curious about how to build vision while not creating asynchronous power relationships that prevent creativity and healthy dissonance. I found this post because of the Ralph Stacy tag. I was searching for Ralph Stacy because the HSD institute has adapted the model of ‘landscape design’ that tries to balance the emancipatory result of power through an awareness of unintended consequences and the results of agreement and certainty in our approach to careful planning. You can read more on my post here: http://johnthornburn.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/hsd-landscape-model-a-leadership-framework/

Cheers
John

Comment on Repetitive Patterns of Communication: Thought Collectives and Thought Styles by Conforming and resisting. Thinking with and within institutions « Reflexivepractice

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:16:53 +0000

[...] One of the things that she is concerned to do in this book is to illuminate more clearly the ways that individuals come together to shape organisations, and consequently the way that individuals in their turn are shaped by the sustained processes and functioning of institutions. She draws on the work of Ludwik Fleck, who coined the term ‘thought collectives’ to describe the way that particular approaches to science become institutionalised so that it becomes impossible to think or argue in a different way. For a more thorough treatment of Fleck’s thought, see Ralph Stacey’s post here. [...]

Comment on Systems thinking and complex responsive processes – can they be integrated? by Eric

Eric — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:34:39 +0000

It occurs to me that one way of making sense of Luoma et al.’s article is to understand it as a way of trying to appropriate new ways of thinking and acting into their own take on human organizing. Chris’s response may then be seen to be an attempt to enter into an engaged discussion, and it seems like this is exactly what is required at this stage, in order for both SI colleagues and those from the Complexity Research Group to expand their understanding. Otherwise the effort of appropriateing new ways of understanding may rather look like attempts to annex and incorporate what has been developed at the Complexity Research Group. If there’s anything that complex responsive processes thinking invites one to do it is this: critical exchange of opinions in order for us to broaden our understanding of both what we’re doing and of who we are. May be the easiest way of dealing with this is not to respond through supposing that the Complexity Reaseach Group people are simply not getting it. Yet, this will then not extend our understanding but instead lead to a stalled sense of what I’m doing and of who I am vis-à-vis the other. In that sense I’m looking forward to Luoma et al.’s response! Eric

Comment on Trust in Organisations by Fredrik

Fredrik — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:42:56 +0000

This is a respons to Ralph Stacey and his post Dec 5.

Yes Ralph, from my point of view complex responsive processes now makes sense again. At least to the degree of “good enough”, which is all that I ask for, in the here and now, relating to my own sense-making.

The French philosopher Paul Ricoeur focus in his book “Oneself as Another” on the concept of personal identity and develops a hermeneutics of the self where the dialectics between oneself and the other is core. In the process he introduces the kinship between suspicion and attestation. In so doing he argues that there is no “true” testimony without “false” testimony. But there is no recource against “false” testimony than another that is more credible; and there is no recourse against suspicion but a more reliable attestation.

With that as a backdrop, I appreciate your “reliable attestations” responding to my expressed “suspicions” about your nov 23 post “Trust in Organisations”.

I also appreciate the “suspicion” you bring into open (based upon my wordings in the dec 3 post) by your saying “Indeed when one uses the acronym CRP instead of the cumbersome ‘complex responsive processes’ one is already well on the way to reification in which we simply use CRP instead of ‘system’ and then nothing much changes in how we are thinking.” I will take up your invitation and explore this a little further, mirroring it back onto myself.

Fredrik Bååthe