Category Archives: reflexivity

Complex responsive processes – 4 pillars of thought, 5 key insights.

Before starting this post, and for those readers interested in attending the next Complexity and Management Conference, next year it will be slightly earlier: 17-19th May 2019.

Introduction

This post is the theoretical introduction to the perspective of complex responsive processes of relating, which I gave in the afternoon of the one-day workshop preceding this year’s Complexity and Management Conference. It informs a whole raft of publications written and edited by Ralph Stacey, Doug Griffin, Patricia Shaw and myself along with all the theses of graduates of the Doctor of Management (DMan) programme at the University of Hertfordshire, who now number 72 (60 doctorates and 12 MAs). The perspective has also been adduced by a wide range of consultants, scholars and graduates of other programmes. I mention this at the beginning of the post because I often get asked ‘what next for complex responsive processes?’, or ‘what or who constitutes the complex responsive processes community?’ I think the question is sometimes aimed at asking who decides what the perspective of complex responsive processes is, to which the answer must be, the original authors, everyone and no one. The glorious thing about ideas is that once published, they belong to everybody, irrespective of whether they are reproduced or developed in ways in which the ‘original’ scholars would recognise. And when other people develop the ideas in their own way, then this just leads to opportunities for further discussion. This is not to suggest that as far as I am concerned ‘anything goes’. The point about having an intellectual position is that you are prepared to argue for it, whilst acknowledging the perspectives of those you argue with.

The perspective of complex responsive processes rests on four pillars of intellectual tradition: it draws on insights from the complexity sciences; it is based in Norbert Elias’ processual sociology; it takes up key ideas from pragmatic philosophy, particularly from Mead and Dewey; and it borrows from the group analytic tradition as set out by SH Foulkes, particularly in terms of the working methods which we adopt on the DMan programme. What all four have in common is that they are concerned with phenomena in a state of flux and change over time, and they are focused more or less on how global patterns arise from micro-interactions, or how micro-interactions embody global patterns. Our particular interpretation reads paradox into the working of complex adaptive systems models (CAS), just as see paradox deployed by Mead, Dewey, Elias, and to a lesser degree, Foulkes. In other words, and in the perspective of complex responsive processes you can see Heraclitan dialectic running through our interpretation of CAS, in the work of the pragmatists and Elias, which draws on Hegel, and perhaps more falteringly in Foulkes. Elias and Foulkes are also informed by the thinking of Freud. There are links, then, between the four pillars of thought which underpin the perspective. Continue reading

Complexity and Management Conference (CMC) 8th-10th June 2018 – Taking Complexity Seriously.

Here is the link to the public booking page for the June 8-10th Complexity and Management Conference 2018. This year’s theme is: Taking Complexity Seriously: Why Does It Matter?

At the conference we are marking Ralph Stacey’s retirement from the DMan programme and the University of Hertfordshire after an academic career of more than 30 years.

I’m afraid the site is a bit clunky – for example, if you want to book both the conference and the workshop you have to choose the conference first then continue and book the workshop on the next page. All board and lodging is covered in the cost of the conference fee, but there is no accommodation included in the workshop fee.

Both workshop and conference will take place at Roffey Park  Institute. However, Roffey Park only accommodates 60 people and we are expecting over 100 delegates, so those who don’t stay at Roffey will be placed in a hotel nearby. Transport to and from the hotel will be provided free of charge.

The one-day workshop on Friday 8th is an introduction to complex responsive processes as a body of thought: how did it develop, what ideas underpin it and how do we take up the ideas, for example, on the Doctor of Management programme? Participants will have lots of opportunities to link the ideas to their everyday experience at work through discussion. This one-day workshop is probably not suitable for anyone already very familiar with the perspective. The one-day workshop is introduced by Ralph Stacey and Chris Mowles.

The inaugural drinks reception and supper will begin at 7pm on Friday evening and is included in the cost of the conference.

The conference comprises:

The first key note speech on Saturday 9th June in the morning from Ralph Stacey outlining the development of complex responsive processes, followed by Q and A.

Small group work on the ideas arising from the keynote.

Lunch

In the afternoon there are parallel workshops, which will run twice, convened by members of the broader community of practitioners, academics and other interested parties who would like to discuss some aspect of complexity thinking that they have developed. A full list of the workshops will be circulated closer to the conference.

Supper will be at 8pm.

On Sunday 10th June Chris Mowles will try to give an overview of some of the key themes which have arisen during the conference. Thereafter there will be further group work and a concluding plenary.

Lunch is at 1pm on the Sunday, after which the conference closes.

Hope to see you there.

So what shall we do?

After a series of workshops in Australia a colleague observed to me that the perspective of complex responsive processes is very good at taking apart the dominant discourse on management. It does so systematically and methodically, and although making no claims to be the only school of thought which takes a critical stance towards instrumental management theory, it appears to offer nothing in its place. As my Australian colleague observed, ‘so what do you leave people with. What should they do?’ Continue reading

Emotions in group life – insights from political turmoil in the UK

For those readers of this blog outside the UK, and who may have a less detailed understanding of what has been happening here, contemporary British politics offers some perfect examples of individual and group behaviour at the extreme. This drama could be of great interest to organizational scholars, particularly in this exaggerated form because it gives the lie to the perspective that we are all rational, calculating individuals capable of calmly working out what is in our best interests and that of others, and that we are always in control. Rather it has been a story of manic action and reaction, no doubt accompanied by very strong feelings[1], which has mirrored a particularly bloody episode of Game of Thrones.

o-MICHAEL-GOVE-facebook

The whole circus has been amplified because it takes place in the public gaze and is subject to minute by minute commentary by media and social media, and is not subject to the usual smoothing over by public relations techniques which imply that everyone knows what they are doing and has a plan. In many ways the amplification is a classic example of what Anthony Giddens meant by the ‘double hermeneutic’[2] – observations, interpretations of what is unfolding get taken up by the actors themselves, and so shape as well as describe what is happening, forming and being formed. Continue reading