The Human Role Within Organizational Change: A Complex System Perspective

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Although complex systems have been part of organizational studies for several decades, research have only shifted significantly in recent years. This paper is based on existent work on complex systems and particularly on the research about power-law distributions. Through this research stream, we propose that organizational change becomes more explainable. Furthermore we suggest that the human role within organizational change will have a strong influence on the change process, and therefore it is necessary to research the distribution of the human network to improve the change process. Distinguishing behavior in a human network following the power-law distribution or normal distribution will lead to different approaches towards the change process. Interestingly both distributions point to opposing actions. Based on this, understanding the human role within a complex system will be essential for observing the dynamic interactions within an organization, and thus understanding the human network within organizational change.

Keywords

Change Process Organizational Change Simple Rule Pareto Distribution Emergent Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alaa, G. (2009). Derivation of factors facilitating organizational emergence based on complex adaptive systems and social autopoiesis theories. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 11(1), 19–34.Google Scholar
  2. Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabási, A.-L. (2000). Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature, 406, 378–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail. London: Random House.Google Scholar
  5. Andriani, P., & McKelvey, B. (2009). From Gaussian to Paretian thinking: Causes and implications of power laws in organization. Organization Science, 20(6), 1053–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andriani, P., & McKelvey, B. (2011). Managing in a Pareto world calls for new thinking. Management, 14(2), 89–118.Google Scholar
  7. Ashby, R. W. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  8. Bak, P. (1996). How nature works: The science of self-organized criticality. New York: Copernicus.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barabási, A.-L. (2003). Linked: How everything is connected to everything else and what it means for business, science, and everyday life. London: PLUME.Google Scholar
  10. Barabási, A.-L. (2005). The origin of bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics. Nature, 435, 207–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barabási, A.-L. (2007). The architecture of complexity. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 27(4), 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barabási, A.-L. (2011). Bursts: The hidden patterns behind everything we do, from your E-Mail to bloody crusades. London: PLUME.Google Scholar
  13. Barabási, A.-L. (2012). The network takeover. Nature Physics, 8, 14–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 133–141.Google Scholar
  15. Boisot, M., & McKelvey, B. (2011). Connectivity, extremes, and adaptation: A power-law perspective of organizational effectiveness. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(2), 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bouchikhi, H., & Kimberly, J. (2003). The rhythm of change: Escaping the identity trap. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 20–26.Google Scholar
  17. Burke, W. W., & Biggart, N. (1997). Interorganizational relations. In D. Druckman, J. E. Singer, & H. Van Cott (Eds.), Enhancing organizational performance (pp. 120–149). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  18. Burnes, B. (2004). Managing change: A strategic approach to organisational dynamics. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Carley, K. M., Diesner, J., Reminga, J., & Tsvetovat, M. (2007). Toward an interoperable dynamic network analysis toolkit. Decision Support Systems, 43(4), 1324–1347. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.003. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923606000601#.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chauset, A., Shakizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. J. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review, 51(4), 661–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Choi, M., & Ruona, W. E. A. (2011). Individual readiness for organizational change and its implications for human resource and organization development. Human Resource Development Review, 10(1), 46–73. doi: 10.1177/1534484310384957. http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/10/1/46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Cilliers, P. (2006). On the importance of a certain slowness. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8(3), 105–112.Google Scholar
  24. Dodds, P. S., Watts, D. J., & Sabel, C. F. (2003). Information exchange and the robustness of organizational networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(21), 12516–12521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eoyang, G. H. (2007). Human system dynamics: Complexity-based approach to a complex evaluation. In B. Williams & I. Iman (Eds.), Systems concepts in evaluation: An expert anthology (pp. 75–88). Point Reyes: Edge Press.Google Scholar
  26. Eoyang, G. H. (2011). Complexity and the dynamics of organizational change. In P. Allen, S. Maguire, & B. McKelvey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of complexity and management (pp. 317–332). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Falconer, K. (1997). Techniques in fractal geometry. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Falconer, J. (2002). Emergence happens! Misguided paradigms regarding organizational change and the role of complexity and patterns in the change landscape. Emergence, 4(1/2), 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 541–570.Google Scholar
  31. Garnier, S., Gautrais, J., & Theraulaz, G. (2007). The biological principles of swarm intelligence. Swarm Intelligence, 1(1), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gladwell, M. (2002). The tipping point. Boston: Back Bay Books.Google Scholar
  33. Goodwin, B. (1994). How the leopard changed its spots: The evolution of complexity. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  34. Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gunz, H., Lichtenstein, B. B., & Long, R. (2001). Self-organization in career systems: A view from complexity science. Management, 5(1), 63–88.Google Scholar
  36. Hodge, B., & Coronado, G. (2007). Understanding change in organizations in a far-from-equilibrium world. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 9(3), 3–15.Google Scholar
  37. Huy, Q., & Mintzberg, H. (2003). Rhythm of change. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(4), 79–84.Google Scholar
  38. Jones, C. I. (2005). The shape of production functions and the direction of technical change. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 517–549.Google Scholar
  39. Jones, C. (2011). Atlanta still world’s busiest airport; Beijing passes Heathrow as No. 2. http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2011/03/atlanta-still-worlds-busiest-airport-beijing-passes-heathrow-as-no-2/148084/1. Accessed on January 08, 2012.
  40. Lawson, T. (1997). Economics and reality. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leana, C., & Barry, B. (2000). Stability and change as simultaneous experiences in organizational life. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 753–760.Google Scholar
  42. Levick, D., & Kuhn, L. (2007). Fractality, organizational management, and creative change. World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution, 63(3/4), 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lissack, M. R. (1999). Complexity: The science, its vocabulary, and its relation to organizations. Emergence, 1(1), 110–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Liu, Y.-Y., Slotine, J.-J., & Barabási, A.-L. (2011). Controllability of complex networks. Nature, 473, 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lorenz, E. N. (1963). Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 20(2), 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maguire, S., Allen, P., & McKelvey, B. (2011). Complexity and management: Introducing the SAGE handbook. In P. Allen, S. Maguire, & B. McKelvey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of complexity and management (pp. 1–26). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Maguire, S., McKelvey, B., Mirabeau, L., & Öztas, N. (2006). Complexity science and organization studies. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organization studies (pp. 165–214). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mandelbrot, B. B. (1982). The fractal geometry of nature. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  49. Marion, R. (1999). The edge of organization: Chaos and complexity theories of formal social organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2011). Implications of complexity science for the study of leadership. In P. Allen, S. Maguire, & B. McKelvey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of complexity and management (pp. 385–399). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. McKelvey, B. (2004). “Simple rules” for improving corporate IQ: Basic lessons from complexity science. In P. Andriani & G. Passiante (Eds.), Complexity theory and the management of networks (pp. 39–52). London: Imperial College Press.Google Scholar
  52. McKelvey, B., & Andriani, P. (2005). Why Gaussian statistics are mostly wrong for strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 3(2), 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  54. Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity—A guided tour. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Newman, M. E. J. (2005). Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemporary Physics, 46(5), 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pentland, A. (2010). Honest signals: How they shape our world. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Pfeffer, J. (2010). Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1), 34–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Poole, M. S., Van de Ven, A. H., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M. E. (2000). Organizational change and innovation processes: Theory and methods for research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Organizational development: Theory, practice, and research. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial & organizational psychology (pp. 719–822). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  60. Rindova, V., & Kotha, S. (2001). Continuous morphing: Competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1263–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rowland, G. (2004). Designing with: A homeopoietic ethic for organizational change. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 21(3), 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schmid, L. (2004). Are living beings in a state of self-organized criticality? A new interpretation of data on work incapacity due to low back pain. Medical Hypotheses, 62(3), 458–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Scholz, T. M. (2012). Dynamische Sprache für ein dynamisches Personalmanagement: Eine Anforderungsanalyse. In V. Stein, & S. Müller (Eds.), Aufbruch des strategischen Personalmanagements in die Dynamisierung (pp. 291–296). Baden-Baden and München: Nomos and Vahlen.Google Scholar
  64. Scholz, T. M. (2013). Complex systems in organizations and their influence on Human Resource Management. In T. Gilbert, M. Kirkilionis, & G. Nicolis (Eds.), Proceedings of the European conference on complex systems (pp. 745–750). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  65. Siggelkow, N. (2002). Evolution toward fit. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 125–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Simon, P. (2013). Too big to ignore—The business case for big data. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  67. Stein, V. (2010). Professionalisierung des Personalmanagements: Selbstverpflichtung als Weg. Zeitschrift für Management, 5(3), 201–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Uddin, S., Murshed, S. T. H., & Hossain, L. (2011). Power-law behavior in complex organizational communication networks during crisis. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 390(15), 2845–2853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory. New York: Braziller.Google Scholar
  70. Willinger, W., Alderson, D., Doyle, J. C., & Li, L. (2004). More ‘normal’ than normal: Scaling distributions and complex systems. In R. G. Ingalls, M. D. Rossetti, J. S. Smith, & B. A. Peters (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 Winter Simulation Conference (pp. 130–141). Piscataway: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  71. Wolfram, S. (2002). A new kind of science. Champaign: Wolfram Media.Google Scholar
  72. Zimmermann, B., & Hurst, D. (1993). Breaking the boundaries: The fractal organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(4), 334–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SiegenSiegenGermany

Personalised recommendations