Skip to main content
Log in

A Board's Journey into Complexity Science: Lessons from (and for) Staff and Board Members

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Complexity science has been used as a lens to interpret organizations (Goldstein 1994; Morgan 1993, 1997; Stacey 1992, 1996a; Wheatley 1992; Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers 1996; Zimmerman 1993a, 1993b). These interpretations have shone a light on aspects of organizations that were idiosyncratic or at least difficult to reconcile with dominant organizational theories. In this paper, we go beyond interpreting results through a complexity lens to demonstrating how board members and staff of an organization deliberately applied insights from complexity science to improve their work. Using an action learning approach, we worked with the board and staff for a year. One of the lessons from this journey was the need to differentiate between "fake" complexity and real complexity. Using "fake" complexity, simple issues were complexified and complex issues were avoided. Another key lesson was the role of relationships for complex issues. This paper presents a "STAR" relationship model to help organizations discern the generative potential of current and future relationships. Each point, or letter, of the STAR represents one dimension of a potentially generative relationship. Through the action research process, both the researchers and the members of the organization extended our understanding of how complexity science can enhance the capacity to evolve in a rapidly changing environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Argyris, C., R. Putnam, and D. McLain Smith. (1985). Action Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elden, M., and M. Levin. (1991). “Co-generative learning: Bringing participation into action research,” in W. F. Whyte (ed.), Participative Action Research. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery, F., and E. Trist. (1973). Towards a Social Ecology. London: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J. (1994). The Unshackled Organization: Facing the Challenge of Unpredictability Through Spontaneous Reorganization. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, B. (1994). How the Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity. New York, NY: Touchstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. (1995). Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. (1995). At Home in the Universe. New York, NY and Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, K. (1994). Out of Control: The Rise of Neo-Biological Civilization. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D., and R. Maxfield. (1996). “Strategy under complexity: Fostering generative relationships,” Long Range Planning 29, 215–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, R. (1992). Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos. New York, NY: Collier Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, P., and J. Gandz. (1992). “Getting value form shared values,” Organizational Dynamics 20(3), winter.

  • Morgan, G. (1989). Class notes from a PhD qualitative research course.

  • Morgan, G. (1993). Imaginization: The Art of Creative Management. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morley, D. (1989). “Frameworks for organizational change: Towards action learning in global environments,” in S. Wright and D. Morley (eds.), Learning Works: Searching for Organizational Futures. Toronto: ABL Group, FES, York University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. (1996a). Complexity and Creativity in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. (1996b). Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics. Pitman Publishing, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. (1992). Managing the Unknowable: Strategic Boundaries Between Order and Chaos in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldrop, M. (1992). Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheatley, M. S. (1992). Leadership and the New Science. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheatley, M.S., M. Kellner-Rogers. (1996). A Simpler Way. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1993a). “Chaos and nonequilibrium: The flip side of strategic processes,” Organization Development Journal 11(1), spring, 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B.J. (1993b), “The inherent drive towards chaos,” in P. Lorange, B. Chakravarthy, J. Roos, and A. Van-de Ven (eds.), Strategic Processes: Change, Learning and Cooperation. London, England: Basil Blackwell Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B.J., C. Lindberg, and P. Psek. (1998). Edgeware: Complexity Resources for Health Care Leaders. Dallas: VHA, also available at www.edgeplace.com

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B.J, and C. Lindberg. (1999). “Stories of emergence in health care,” Schulich School of Business Working Paper #01/99, York University, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zimmerman, B., Hayday, B. A Board's Journey into Complexity Science: Lessons from (and for) Staff and Board Members. Group Decision and Negotiation 8, 281–303 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008709903070

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008709903070

Keywords

Navigation