Southern Cross University
ePublications@SCU
Theses
2004
Complex adaptive systems and organisational
understanding in the Royal Australian Air Force
Callum Soutar Brown
Southern Cross University
Publication details
Brown, CS 2004, 'Complex adaptive systems and organisational understanding in the Royal Australian Air Force', DBA thesis,
Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW.
Copyright CS Brown 2004
ePublications@SCU is an electronic repository administered by Southern Cross University Library. Its goal is to capture and preserve the intellectual
output of Southern Cross University authors and researchers, and to increase visibility and impact through open access to researchers around the
world. For further information please contact [email protected].
_____________________________________________________________________
COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS
AND
ORGANISATIONAL UNDERSTANDING
IN
THE ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE
CALLUM S. BROWN
A dissertation
presented to The Graduate Research College of
Southern Cross University
for the degree
of Doctor of Business Administration.
August 2004
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
i
_____________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS AND
ORGANISATIONAL UNDERSTANDING
IN THE ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE
CALLUM BROWN
The dissertation contends that an instrument developed through using a model of
complex adaptive systems as a generative metaphor will assist members of an
organisation to better understand their organisation. Using an action research
methodology, six Air Force Management Services Teams were exposed to six
overlapping attributes of complex adaptive systems through focus group workshops
with an aim to determine whether they, as experienced management consulting
practitioners, saw value to themselves and their Air Force clients of using aspects of
complex adaptive systems for organisational understanding. The overlapping
attributes of complex adaptive systems were distilled from the literature reviewed.
Whereas the focus group workshop participants found the attributes valuable in
understanding the dynamics of organisational behaviour, they found the new way of
thinking challenging on a number of different perspectives. Some aspects of the Air
Force organisation, like its high levels of organisational experience, will make the
introduction to and use of complex adaptive systems thinking simpler, while other
aspects of the Air Force organisation, like its sensitivity to complex adaptive systems
terminology, will make the introduction and use of complex adaptive systems more
challenging. Notwithstanding the challenges, both the complex adaptive systems
model, and the use of action research were found to be useful ways of introducing
organisations to complex adaptive systems thinking.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
ii
_____________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT _________________________________________________________ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ______________________________________________ iii
APPENDICES ______________________________________________________ iv
TABLES ___________________________________________________________ iv
LIST OF FIGURES __________________________________________________ iv
ABBREVIATIONS ___________________________________________________v
DECLARATION ____________________________________________________ vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ____________________________________________vii
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ________________________________________1
Background to the research____________________________________________1
Research problem & research questions __________________________________4
Justification for the research ___________________________________________6
Methodology _______________________________________________________7
Outline of the report _________________________________________________9
Definitions________________________________________________________11
Limitations and key assumptions ______________________________________12
Conclusion _______________________________________________________13
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW _________________________________15
Introduction_______________________________________________________15
Complex adaptive systems ___________________________________________17
Biology and genetics________________________________________________25
Complexity modelling ______________________________________________28
Military research ___________________________________________________31
Social systems _____________________________________________________39
Gaps in published research ___________________________________________57
Conclusion _______________________________________________________58
CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY ______________________________________60
Introduction_______________________________________________________60
Selection and justification of action research _____________________________61
Unit of analysis ____________________________________________________71
Design of focus group_______________________________________________74
Collection of data __________________________________________________77
Analysis of data____________________________________________________80
Ethical considerations _______________________________________________81
Conclusion _______________________________________________________84
CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS ____________________86
Introduction_______________________________________________________86
Pilot Study Findings ________________________________________________87
Findings – action research cycle 1 _____________________________________90
Findings – action research cycle 2 _____________________________________97
Findings – action research cycle 3 ____________________________________102
Findings – action research cycle 4 ____________________________________105
Findings – action research cycle 5 ____________________________________110
Findings – action research cycle 6 ____________________________________114
Findings research question 1_________________________________________117
Findings research question 2_________________________________________120
Conclusion ______________________________________________________121
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
iii
_____________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ___________________123
Introduction______________________________________________________123
Conclusions about research questions _________________________________123
Conclusions about research problem __________________________________129
Implications for the theory __________________________________________136
Implications for policy and practice ___________________________________140
Private sector managers ____________________________________________144
Public sector policy analysts and managers _____________________________147
Limitations ______________________________________________________148
Further Research __________________________________________________150
REFERENCES _____________________________________________________153
APPENDICES
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Interview Protocol
Focus Group Workshop Tool
Focus Group Workshop Slides
Focus Group Workshop Comments
Intention and Reflection Comments
Focus Group Workshop Validity Questionnaire
Focus Group Workshop Handout – Cycle 2
Focus Group Workshop Handout – Cycle 6
TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
adapted from McNiff et.al., 2000
Pilot study findings
Action research cycle 1 findings
Action research cycle 2 findings
Action research cycle 3 findings
Action research cycle 4 findings
Action research cycle 5 findings
Action research cycle 6 findings
LIST OF FIGURES
1
2
3
4
5
Diagrammatical representation of Chapter 1
Diagrammatical representation of Chapter 2
Diagrammatical representation of Chapter 3
Diagrammatical representation of Chapter 4
Diagrammatical representation of Chapter 5
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
iv
_____________________________________________________________________
ABBREVIATIONS
ADF
Australian Defence Force
ALP
Adaptive Leadership Program
APS
Australian Public Service
CAF
Chief of Air Force
CNN
Cable Network News
EBO
Effects-Based Operations
FEG
Force Element Group
MSA
Management Services Agency
RAAF
Royal Australian Air Force
SLT
Senior Leadership Team
SWOT
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
v
_____________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION
I certify that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by
another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the
award of any other degree or diploma of a university or other institute of higher
learning, except where due acknowledgment is made in the text.
The views expressed in this report are my own and should not be construed as
official opinion or policy of the Royal Australian Air Force or the Department of
Defence.
Callum S. Brown
August 2004
Copyright
Callum S. Brown
August 2004
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
vi
_____________________________________________________________________
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Dr Michael Gloster in
supervising this thesis.
The author also wishes to thank Air Commodores Graham Bentley and Mark
Lax of the Policy and Plans Branch of Air Force Headquarters for their financial
sponsorship and support of this research.
I would also like to thank my family for their understanding and support.
C.S.B.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
vii
_____________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
Obviously, this is an act of the imagination. Things are perceived, of course, partly by
the naked eye and partly by the mind, which fills the gaps with guesswork based on
learning and experience, and thus constructs a whole out of the fragments that the eye
can see.
- Clausewitz, On War
Background to the research
In this introductory chapter, the background to the report will be introduced
before discussing the research problem and specific research questions. A
justification for the research will be provided before moving on to an explanation of
the methodology that I intend to use. I will then lay out the structure of the remainder
of the report and definitions used in the early part of the report. Limitations and key
assumptions will be listed before the chapter is concluded. This structure is consistent
with that recommended by Perry (Perry, 1998). The structure of this chapter can be
shown diagrammatically in Figure 1.
Background to the
research
Conclusion
Research problem
& research
questions
Limitations and
key assumptions
Justification for
the research
Methodology
Definitions
Outline of the
report
Figure 1. Diagrammatical Structure of Chapter 1
I work as a senior internal management consultant in the Royal Australian Air
Force (RAAF) and have done so for about twelve years. Much of this time has been
occupied with assisting people within the RAAF, commonly referred to as the Air
Force, understand their organisations better with a view to increasing the value that
they add. I would also like to think that my work with them improves their
experience and leads to a greater sense of satisfaction in having contributed to
organisational outcomes through their work. Over this time, I have become
increasingly challenged to find useful methods of describing organisational behaviour
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
1
_____________________________________________________________________
in the Air Force. There is also a concern that with changing one part of an
organisation’s system may have a negative impact on another part. This has been
noted by other researchers;
The complexity of the systems in which we are embedded overwhelms our
ability to understand them. The result is that many seemingly obvious solutions to
problems fail or actually worsen the situation. (Sterman, 2000) p 22
Where interventions are perceived to generate improvements, these
improvements may be short-term and not sustained and may not recognise the
dynamic aspect of organisational behaviour;
Problems cannot be assumed to remain unchanged over time, which
establishes the key consideration in the development of Schon's method: that problem
definitions that remain tacit are potentially incomplete and may lead to the
development of inadequate solutions. (Kiehne, 2003)
Other management consultants have also found that many traditional
organisational interventions, and particularly change programs, often fail to achieve
the desired effect and one suggests that an explanation for these failures may be found
in Quantum Age thinking where self-organising systems demonstrate the ability of all
life to organise into systems of relationships that result in increasing capacity
(Wheatley, 1999). Thoughtful leaders increasingly suspect that the tools they have
been using have not only failed to solve the persistent problems they face, but may in
fact be causing them. All too often, well-intentioned efforts to solve pressing
problems create unanticipated side effects (Sterman, 2001).
In my position as Director of the Management Services Agency (MSA) I have
six small teams of highly trained consultants, located in various parts of Australia
working within the Air Force organisation. Like me, they are frequently confronted
with the challenges of firstly, understanding organisational behaviour themselves, and
secondly, assisting people in their client’s organisations understand their
organisations.
The Air Force that I have been a member of since 1984 has been in existence
since 1921. It has as its main role the provision of air power for the security of
Australia and its interests. In this role it must confront the chaos and ambiguity that
constitutes combat (AerospaceCentre, 2002).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
2
_____________________________________________________________________
The organisational behaviour of the Air Force is a reflection of a number of
important factors including its culture, military history, and, particularly, it’s
operating environment in both combat and peace. The current Chief of Air Force, Air
Marshal Angus Houston, has articulated his vision for the Air Force where he
expresses a desire for it to be a values-based organisation. What he means by this is
that by developing people in the Air Force to recognise that there is no one best way;
to be prepared to remove the rules and meet the intent; and to be prepared to use their
own judgement to act and not hide behind rules, the Air Force will be more efficient
and effective (Houston, 2003). He has also stated that in order to meet the needs of
the future, the Air Force must be responsive, flexible and adaptable (Houston, 2003).
To assist in creating this ‘values-based’ organisation, the MSA conducts
Senior Executive Seminars that target senior Air Force managers. The two-day
seminars, facilitated by an external management consultant, introduce participants to,
among other topics, complex adaptive systems thinking. Every seminar is evaluated
and the data from these evaluations reveal that there is considerable interest shown by
participants in the topic of complex adaptive systems therefore my research may be of
interest to them. Complex adaptive systems involve phenomena which may be
characterised by the interactions of numerous individual agents or elements, that selforganise at a higher systems level, and then in turn show emergent and adaptive
properties not exhibited by the individual agents (Doolittle, 2002). In order to provide
seminar participants with more information on complex adaptive systems thinking, I
investigated the topic in more detail. What I found was the possibility of developing a
more useful way to understand organisational behaviour and thereby a way to assist
the MSA’s clients more fully. I also felt that developing a deeper understanding of
complex adaptive systems thinking may provide me, as a practicing manager, with a
greater understanding of organisational behaviour. If this deeper personal
understanding leads to being able to assist those within the MSA to better understand
organisational behaviour, then it will assist the Air Force overall.
The general problem that this report addresses is organisational understanding
in the Air Force. This report will examine organisational understanding and whether
aspects of complex adaptive systems can add richness to people’s understanding of
their organisations. This is important, as it will lead to a way of better understanding
how the Air Force organisation behaves. A secondary outcome will be exposing my
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
3
_____________________________________________________________________
people to complex adaptive systems as a metaphor for understanding their client’s
organisations.
This report will focus on the use a model of complex adaptive systems as a
generative metaphor to assist the design of an instrument to enable members of an
organisation to better understand it. The research proposition is therefore, that
knowledge of complex adaptive systems will enable members of an organisation to
better understand it. The Air Force is a useful setting for this research because it is
large by organisational standards (approximately 15,000 personnel), geographically
dispersed, and has a distinct role and purpose.
I will argue that an appropriate epistemology of understanding organisations is
through a better understanding of how complex adaptive systems work. I need to
answer such questions as, “How do I improve my understanding of organisations?”
and/or “How do I improve my practice as a management consultant?” These are the
starting points for any theory of organisational understanding that I might generate
through the use of the complex adaptive systems metaphor. These findings would
also be appropriate for other management consultants. The theory that I intend to
formulate from examining my own practice may be demonstrated to be effective in
developing both the theory and practice of other management consultants (McNiff &
Whitehead, 2000).
Research problem & research questions
The research area that I am working within is one of organisational behaviour
and organisational understanding viewed through the lens of complex adaptive
systems thinking. Complex adaptive systems thinking, or complexity theory, with its
origins in the fields of Biology and Ecology, advocate the concept of an organisation
being adaptive to its environment. For example, systems take in data from their
environments, find regularities in the data, and compress these perceived regularities
into internal models that are used to describe and predict its future (Doolittle, 2002).
Complex adaptive systems behaviour has been used in the past to explain, among
other things, evolution theory, but it is now applied to other situations that exhibit
complex behaviour such as various social phenomena.
The general problem that this report addresses is organisational understanding
in the Air Force. Consultants who work with client organisations may be seeking a
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
4
_____________________________________________________________________
more adequate metaphor to understand organisational behaviour in a world that is
facing increasing change. While this is true for the Air Force, it may also be true for
other large organisations. This has been noted by other researchers;
We see the world as increasingly more complex and chaotic because we use
inadequate concepts to explain it. (Gharajedaghi, 1999) p 25
The environment of large organisations is the environment that this research is
set in. Further, while there are signs that the study of organisations is shifting in
focus, both in terms of what is studied and how it is studied, the subject matter of
organisations studies still remains the organisation itself as an object, rather than
people within organisational contexts (McNiff et al., 2000). My research will
examine complex adaptive systems thinking in order to offer an alternative means of
explaining what is happening in organisations.
The aim of my research will be to show that a model of complex adaptive
systems can be used as a generative metaphor to assist the design of an instrument to
enable members of an organisation to better understand it.
This report will examine whether it is possible to produce a practical tool that
uses the overlapping concepts of complex adaptive systems to assist members of
organisations to better understand their organisation.
The major research question is;
Research Question 1: Is it possible to produce a practical tool that uses the
concepts of complex adaptive systems to assist members of organisations to better
understand their organisation?
This research question cannot be tested without the development or use of a
practical tool. Because there is a requirement for the tool to be practical, it must be
tested, at least at the conceptual level. If one can be developed or found, however,
then it needs to be tested by the next research question. The secondary research
question is;
Research Question 2: If it is possible to produce a practical tool, does it work?
These research questions cannot be easily answered by merely conducting a
literature search on complex adaptive systems. There is little research on developing
tools for use by internal consultants to assist them in helping members of an
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
5
_____________________________________________________________________
organisation to better understand it from the perspective of complex adaptive systems.
If organisational understanding in the Air Force can be improved through the use of
aspects of complex adaptive systems then it will provide a useful model that can be
used when considering further development in the Air Force. If organisational
understanding in the Air Force cannot be improved through the perspective of
complex adaptive systems, then perhaps the model used can be tested on other
organisations to see if it is applicable elsewhere. Through the process of the research
a more suitable model to assist organisational understanding in the Air Force may
become evident.
If the answer to the first research question is ‘No’ there could be two reasons
for this; I have not been able to produce a practical tool, or complex adaptive systems
are not useful in assisting people better understand their organisation. The first reason
is that I have been unable to develop a useful tool in this instance, and with further
research this may be attainable. If I come to the conclusion that complex adaptive
systems are of no or little use to assist in the understanding of organisations, then
other means may be more useful and hopefully they will come out of my research.
The second research question becomes redundant if the answer to the first
research question is ‘No’. If the answer is ‘Yes’ then some testing of whether it can
work is required. Perhaps by definition, a practical tool should work, however there is
an opportunity to test the suitability of the tool for understanding organisations.
Justification for the research
While the Air Force is already an efficient and effective organisation, the
justification for this research is to improve that efficiency and effectiveness of the Air
Force in delivering its capability outcomes to the Australian Government and the
people of Australia. Responsibility for achieving outcomes is cascaded from the
Chief of Air Force at the top of the organisation to the lowest level of the
organisation. This responsibility is particularly evident at the level of Commanding
Officers of Air Force units. The consultants within the Management Services Agency
must assist these people, and the people within their units, to fulfil their responsibility
to the Government and the people of Australia. If Air Force internal management
consultants better understand the client organisations they work with, they can use this
information to assist people within those organisations to understand why certain
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
6
_____________________________________________________________________
things happen. With this understanding, greater organisational effectiveness should
be achievable.
From the analysis that this research will provide, a model for better
understanding the Air Force from a complex adaptive systems perspective will be
generated. The research may also shed some light on how the Air Force may respond
to specific changes in its external environment. The research may also be generalised
to public and private organisations and thereby assist them to understand themselves.
The model should be particularly applicable in organisations that have a strong
culture, such as the Air Force (1999). The research findings should provide some
form of understanding to those wishing to use complex adaptive systems as a basis on
which to improve organisational understanding in organisations. In this respect, it
may be useful to organisational consultants. The model will hopefully provide a view
of organisational understanding that accepts organisational behaviour as a dynamic
process and accepts that all organisations operate in a dynamic external environment.
A secondary contribution of this research will be the exposure of complex
adaptive systems as a useful metaphor in understanding organisations to the Air Force
internal management consultants, who should be able to apply the model in their
work. Organisations should take on the responsibility for the ongoing education of
their members, by helping participants learn how to learn, to work towards autonomy,
and to challenge structures and processes that aim to close down opportunities for
learning and growth (McNiff et al., 2000). Linked to this secondary contribution is
the personal learning that will be achieved by myself, as Director of the Air Force’s
internal management consulting organisation.
Methodology
In examining the research problem, three issues become readily apparent. The
first is that a good understanding of complex adaptive systems will be required. The
second is that this understanding needs to culminate in the development of a model
that can be tested, and finally, this model must be tested; at least at the conceptual
level.
To address the first problem a literature search will be conducted into the
general background of complex adaptive systems. This search will be narrowed to
focus on complex adaptive systems and organisational understanding. This will
inform a model that can be developed later in this report that may assist in explaining
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
7
_____________________________________________________________________
how complex adaptive systems can assist organisational understanding in other
organisations. It could well be the case that the literature review will uncover existing
models. If this is the case then these models will be reviewed to determine which may
be most useful in the Air Force context.
The generative metaphor model developed will include concepts of complex
adaptive systems, derived from the literature review, and these will be used as ‘idea
starters’ for educative purposes with the Management Services teams. I would not be
trying to prove whether the concepts of complex adaptive systems are right or wrong,
or the correct number, but rather identify the best way to apply them to organisational
settings in the Air Force. The generative metaphor will serve an instructional purpose
as a means to introduce complex adaptive systems thinking to the Teams (Kiehne,
2003).
Due to the requirement for an educative aspect to the research, the primary
method of research for this report will be Action Research. Action research is a
methodology which has the dual aims of action and research; action to bring about
change is some community or organisation or program, and research to increase
understanding on the part of the researcher or the client, or both (Dick, 1993). For an
organisational understanding model to have practical application, an understanding of
a ‘real’ organisation must be demonstrated. I have first-hand experience and
understanding of the management consulting process that occurs in the Air Force.
I have the opportunity to test this research within my own organisation, the
MSA, and whether my people, with their significant management consulting
expertise, also find it useful. This will be a relatively simple matter in terms of access
as they work for me and I see them on a regular basis throughout the year, despite
their geographic dispersion. Furthermore, they are all highly trained in organisational
consulting and should be in a position to offer valuable comment on the utility, or
otherwise, of a model. A secondary outcome of the research will be exposing my
people to action research as a methodology for intervening in client organisations.
Although an alternative methodology, that of embedded case studies, was
originally considered, a pilot test of an interview with a senior manager indicated that
this form of data collection would not provide the result desired due to the issue of
inference, rather than explicitness. The methodology of action research will allow a
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
8
_____________________________________________________________________
semi educative process and elicit either agreement or disagreement with the proposal
that the model may be useful in understanding organisations.
Outline of the report
This report will be presented in the standard structure of five chapters. Within
each chapter there will be a varying number of sections. The details of the structure of
each chapter follow.
Chapter 1 of the report, which will be titled Introduction, includes eight
sections:
Background to the research,
Research problem & research questions,
Justification for the research,
Methodology,
Outline of the report,
Definitions,
Limitations and key assumptions, and
Conclusion.
Chapter two of the report, which will be titled, Literature Review, will include
eight sections:
Introduction,
Complexity adaptive systems,
Science and genetics,
Complexity modelling,
Military research,
Social systems,
Gaps in published research, and
Conclusion.
Chapter three of the report, which will be titled, Methodology, will include
eight sections:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
9
_____________________________________________________________________
Introduction,
Selection and justification of action research,
Unit of analysis,
Design of focus group,
Collection of data,
Analysis of data,
Ethical considerations, and
Conclusion.
Chapter four of the report, which will be titled, Analysis of Data and Findings,
will include eleven sections:
Introduction,
Pilot study findings
Findings – action research cycle 1,
Findings - action research cycle 2,
Findings - action research cycle 3,
Findings - action research cycle 4,
Findings - action research cycle 5,
Findings - action research cycle 6,
Findings - research question 1,
Findings - research question 2, and
Conclusion.
Chapter five of the report, which will be titled, Conclusions and Implications,
will include nine sections:
Introduction,
Conclusions about research questions,
Conclusions about research problem,
Implications for the theory,
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
10
_____________________________________________________________________
Implications for policy and practice,
Private sector managers,
Public sector policy analysts and managers,
Limitations, and
Further Research.
Although the structure of the report is standard in terms of layout, the
necessity to include the findings of the action research cycle will mean there are
minor differences in structure.
Definitions
This section will deal with five higher level definitions that are used
throughout this report, and in particular, the research questions. Chapter 2 –
Literature Review, will define numerous complex adaptive systems terms that will be
encountered in the remainder of the report.
Organisation can be defined most simply as, ‘groups of people in community’
(McNiff et al., 2000), or as ‘a systematic arrangement of people to accomplish some
specific purpose’ (Robbins & Mukerji, 1994).
Complexity theory can be defined as a formal attempt to question how
coherent and purposive wholes emerge from the interactions of simple and sometimes
non-purposive components. At its most humble, it explains the big consequences of
little things (Lissack, 2001). It is a theory that attempts to explain the behaviour of
complex adaptive systems which are characterised by the interactions of numerous
individual agents or elements, that self-organise at a higher systems level, and then in
turn show emergent and adaptive properties not exhibited by the individual agents
(Doolittle, 2002).
A generative metaphor is a term coined by Schön (1993) for supporting the
cultivation of fresh perceptions and the acquisition of new schemas of others (Barrett
& Cooperrider, 2004). By using a metaphor, which makes an implied comparison
between things which are not literally alike, new understanding can be generated.
Schön (Schon, 1993) believed this was characterised by carrying over frames or
perspectives from one domain to another (2004). Metaphor use ascribes properties
from one concept to another by invoking an image in the mind of the receiver which,
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
11
_____________________________________________________________________
in turn, allows the receiver to understand the point of view held by the creator of the
metaphor. In essence, metaphor is a means to communicate understanding from one
frame to another (Kiehne, 2003). Indeed, most organisational theories are constructed
around the use of metaphor and analogy which assist us in seeing and understanding
(Morgan, 1997).
A concept, or construct, is defined as, ‘a generalised idea about a class of
objects; an abstraction of reality that is the basic unit for theory development’
(Zikmund, 2000).
A model is defined as a representation of a system or process (Zikmund,
2000).
A tool is defined as a device or technique that can be used to achieve a
particular purpose.
Limitations and key assumptions
The primary limitations of this study relate to three factors: only one
organisation is being studied; the period of study is limited to a short period; and only
a small number of groups within the one sub-organisation are being asked to
contribute to the research process. These limitations are now explained more fully.
The first limitation, that the research is only being conducted in one
organisation, and that the organisation may be considered, in some ways unique,
could mean that my findings are considered not particularly relevant for other large
organisations. The Air Force as an organisation is probably not particularly unique
compared to other organisations, however it is probably more conservative than many
other large organisations (1999). The issue of uniqueness is encountered in all
instances where generalisability is suggested. However, the research will focus on
organisational attributes that are not particularly unique to the Air Force, and therefore
may be more generalisable to other organisations than first thought. A major reason
for the research being limited to the Air Force organisation is that the Air Force is
funding the research and has an interest in how its findings will assist the
organisation.
The second limitation, that the period of study is limited to a short period, is
encountered by the duration of the research for this report. This poses the question of
whether my results will be time and/or situational-dependent. As the period of study
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
12
_____________________________________________________________________
is short, limited to a one-year period, it could be argued that different results could be
achieved by collecting data over a more prolonged or different time period.
Furthermore, only a small number of action research cycles are going to be conducted
(six) over a relatively short period of time. While accepting that different results
could be obtained over a longer period, again, the nature of the issues to be discussed
are not necessarily time specific, and should therefore elicit the same responses
whenever and wherever they are proposed. Furthermore, there are no limitations
placed on participants in the data collection process about adding further comments
and thoughts after the formal process is completed.
The third limitation, that only a small number of groups within the one suborganisation are being asked to contribute to the research process, is another issue of
generalisation. It would be nearly impossible to include 15,000 personnel in the
research process, particularly using action research methodology. For that reason a
sample that allows easy access is used. The sample to be used, however, is unique in
terms of the work it performs within the Air Force and also belongs to a single
organisation within the Air Force, the MSA. Having said that, the sample group is
split by geographic location, and work relatively independent of each other and
myself. Furthermore, the teams that constitute the various focus groups will comprise
individuals who will have their own particular views on the concepts raised. The
people involved in the focus groups work as organisational management consultants.
Whereas their skills and experience in organisational understanding are most likely
superior to other Air Force personnel, they will be better placed to see value or
otherwise in the proposed model. They will, however, cover a range of ranks from
Sergeant to Squadron Leader (supervisor to middle management).
Associated with the third limitation is that the research will be conducted with
people that work for me. While this makes access simpler it creates several
methodological issues which will be discussed in Chapter 3.
Conclusion
This chapter commenced with a diagram that indicated how the chapter was
structured. It commenced with a section that outlined the background to the research
and explained my interest in the topic of research, generated through the role I play in
the Air Force and my interest in my profession. The section provided an explanation
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
13
_____________________________________________________________________
of where my interest in complex adaptive systems stemmed from and how I wished to
progress that interest. The section tackled the general problem area of organisational
understanding before moving on to the next section which outlined the research
problem and the research questions. The first research question was explained as; is it
possible to produce a practical tool that uses the concepts of complex adaptive
systems to assist members of organisations to better understand their organisation?
The second research question followed on from the first, and asks; If it is possible to
produce a practical tool, does it work? The chapter then moved on to provide the
justification for the research from a micro and macro perspective. The choice of
action research as the research methodology to be used was then explained indicating
the requirement to educate as well as involve people in the research process.
A brief outline of the structure of this report was then provided as a guide for
what is to follow, mentioning the proviso that the standard layout may differ due to
the research methodology selected. Some basic and high-level definitions were then
provided before discussion of the limitations and key assumptions were addressed.
Further definitions will be provided in Chapter 2 and further discussion of research
limitations will be provided in Chapter 3.
Chapter 1 – Introduction, has set the scene for the remainder of this report.
The background to the research has been explained by providing the reader with the
setting for the research. From the background information, the research problem was
defined and thus were the research questions. Now that I have explained the
background to my research, what follows in Chapter 2 is a consideration of what
research has already occurred in the field of complex systems and organisational
understanding.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
14
_____________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Whereas Chapter 1 outlined the background to the research problem of
organisational understanding, Chapter 2 provides the contextual background to
complex adaptive systems, particularly as it relates to organisational understanding.
Chapter 2 is presented in eight sections that cover this introduction, complex adaptive
systems, biology and genetics, complexity modelling, military research, social
systems, gaps in published research and a conclusion. The structure of the chapter and
its sections are shown in Figure 2.
Introduction
Conclusion
Complex adaptive
systems
Gaps in published
research
Biology and genetics
Complexity
modelling
Social systems
Military research
Figure 2 - Diagrammatical Structure of Chapter 2.
The aim of the chapter is to consider existing research and literature that
informs the research question: “Is it possible to produce a practical tool that uses the
concepts of complex adaptive systems to assist members of organisations to better
understand their organisation?” As mentioned in the previous chapter, this question is
important as people that work in organisations are now expecting more from the
experience and, given the dynamic environments that many organisations operate in, a
higher and more comprehensive level of understanding of organisational behaviour is
required. Given the desire to test whether aspects of complex adaptive systems will
enrich organisational understanding, concepts of complex adaptive systems need to be
examined with a view to extracting those that relate to organisational understanding.
In our situation they can then be tested by organisational management consultants to
determine if they provide a better way to assist their clients in the Air Force.
The literature is grouped into five sections to assist in understanding the
different origins and applications of complex adaptive systems. A general overview
of complex systems will initially be provided to set the scene and illustrate the multi-
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
15
_____________________________________________________________________
disciplinary approaches that have been taken to understanding and applying complex
adaptive systems thinking. The foundations of complex adaptive systems in the fields
of biology and genetics will then be explored, examining some of the scientific
underpinnings for the concepts that have been used as metaphors and adopted into the
more general literature on complex adaptive systems. Linked to the mathematical and
computing roots of complex adaptive systems is the field of research that attempts to
model the behaviour of complex systems. Some of the research in these fields may be
of use to us in organisational settings. As there has been some military research that
uses the concepts of complex adaptive systems, and given that my research will be
conducted in a military organisation, these references are examined before moving on
to examining research that particularly addresses social systems, and specifically,
organisational understanding. From each section the aspects that are relevant for
social science applications and this report will be distilled. This information will be
further refined to extract those factors relevant to addressing my research questions.
Finally, the development of the six or seven concepts of complex adaptive systems
that could assist us in understanding organisations will be determined. It will become
apparent that notwithstanding the amount of writing that has occurred regarding
complex systems, there have been few attempts to apply concepts of complex
adaptive systems to organisational activity in real settings. This gap in the published
research will be highlighted, as it provides the rationale for this research, before a
concluding section will summarise the main points raised in the chapter.
The focus of this literature review will be on seeking aspects of complex
adaptive systems that can be used as a generative metaphor in organisational settings.
For that reason, many of the more theoretical and philosophical discussions on
complex adaptive systems have been avoided. Further, the question of whether the
literature and research conducted on complex adaptive systems constitutes a theory is
also avoided, not because it is unimportant, but rather from the viewpoint that the
discussion is of little value in building a generative metaphor as a starting point for
this research. Those that have an interest in complex adaptive systems will know that
the literature can range from highly technical to heavily philosophical (Hase &
Brodnick, 2001). Indeed, part of the challenge in seeking the information that I am, is
sorting the more general research that has been conducted in the areas of quantum
physics, biology, ecology, chaos theory, complexity theory and self-organising
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
16
_____________________________________________________________________
systems theory with some of the more specific research that has been conducted in
applying the theory to management and organisational issues. Notwithstanding this
challenge, by the end of this chapter it will be evident that my research questions have
not been adequately addressed in previous research. The tentative starting model, or
models, that will be determined as the most practical to use as idea starters will be
described and offered as a model that is as good as any other to use for the purposes
of my research.
It is difficult to know how to begin to explain complex adaptive systems. Its
very nature does not lend itself to linear explanation. Many writers have used a story
telling method of explaining complex adaptive systems as it often requires going back
and having a look at what has been said previously before progressing once again.
Nevertheless, the following structure, while perhaps not optimal, will provide a
starting point for the purpose of this research.
Complex adaptive systems
This section will provide an overview of complex systems and reveal the
multi-disciplinary nature of research on the topic. The section will firstly address the
new way of thinking required to grasp complex adaptive systems before moving on to
discussing some basic concepts of complex systems. Finally, six overlapping
concepts of complex adaptive systems will be offered as starting point, or generative
metaphor, to assist in the process of understanding how complex adaptive systems can
assist with organisational understanding. This section will also provide most of the
definitions required for understanding complex systems.
Attempting to understand complex adaptive systems is about embracing a new
way of thinking (Pina e Cunha, Vieira da Cunha, & Kamoche, 2001). It involves a
departure from traditional methods used to understand events such as considering the
external environment as relatively static. Gell-Mann (1994) believes it requires
standing back from highly detailed analysis of parts of a system and taking what is
called, ‘a crude look at the whole’ (Gell-Mann, 1994). Wheatley (1999) states that
how we have been taught to understand our world, termed the Newtonian learning
approach; that is, splitting systems into their constituent parts and making each part
work better, rather than analysing the entire system has led to our inability to grasp
complex issues.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
17
_____________________________________________________________________
The Newtonian approach also means that the arrangement of nature, life and
its complications, are thought to be a linear phenomenon;
Inputs in a linear phenomenon are proportional to outputs, facilitating
prediction by careful planning; success is by detailed monitoring and control; and a
premium is placed upon linear reductionism, rewarding those who excel in such
reductionist processes. Linear reductionist analysis consists of taking large, complex
problems and reducing them to manageable chunks. This form of reductionism works
well in environments that are effectively linear,… (Czerwinski, 1998) p 2
Complex adaptive systems however, are non-linear. A non-linear system is a
system that is unpredictable, that is, if one is familiar with all the components of the
system, one is still unable to determine exactly what will happen next (eg. Weather,
human behaviour, ecology)(Doolittle, 2002). Further, in a non-linear system the
whole is greater than the sum, or average, of its parts (Doolittle, 2002). An aspect of
non-linearity in complex adaptive systems is that cause and effect are distant in time
and space (Brodnick & Krafft, 1997). When this is combined with our linear
thinking, we tend to look for causes near the events we seek to explain. Sterman
(2000) proposes that our attention is drawn to the symptoms of difficulty rather than
the underlying cause: the propensity for us to do this he has termed
‘counterintuitiveness’ (Sterman, 2000). In fact, the unpredictability of non-linear
systems parallels counterintuitive behaviour in a social context (Gharajedaghi, 1999).
Complex, however, is not the same as complicated. ‘Complicated’ refers to a
state where patterns cannot be made but details, parts and susbsystems can be
understood (Lissack 2001). The word ‘complex’ refers to a state where the details
cannot be understood but the whole, or general result, can be understood by the ability
to make patterns (Lissack, 2001).
‘Intuition’ is a term sometimes used in discussion about complex systems.
This intuition, argues Wheatley (1999), is a function of listening, watching and
picking up subtle cues and nuances in what is observed; it is an ability to feel when
something is not quite right (Wheatley, 1999). In this context, it refers to how people
can grasp what changes may be required without dissecting all the parts of the system.
The benefits of a new way of thinking about our experience will become more evident
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
18
_____________________________________________________________________
when we consider where complex systems thinking came from – nonequilibrium
physics;
The roots of complexity are in nonequilibrium physics where new properties of
matter provide unexpected outcomes in far-from-equilibrium conditions and the
modern theory of dynamical structures where there is a prevalence of instability
which means that small changes in initial conditions may lead to large amplifications
of the effects of changes (Gregoire & Prigogine, 1989). p ix
It is suggested by Wheatly (1999) and others (Gharajedaghi, 1999) that in
these structures, disequilibrium is necessary for the system to grow. They also
suggest that when the system is far from equilibrium, singular or small influences can
have enormous impact. It is not the law of large numbers or critical mass that creates
change, but the presence of small disturbances that get into the system and are then
amplified through the system’s networks. Once inside the network, this small
disturbance circulates and feeds back on itself. As different parts of the system get
hold of it, interpret it, and change it, the disturbance grows. Finally it becomes so
amplified that it cannot be ignored by the system (Wheatley, 1999).
The new structures that have been identified in nonequilibrium physics have
been termed ‘dissipative structures’ and have a range of properties that tend to govern
their behaviour (Mathews, White, & Long, 1999). Dissipative structures are selforganising and self-maintaining systems that operate far from thermodynamic
equilibrium (Mathews et al., 1999). In dissipative structures, disorder can be the
source of growth and new order. Dissipation, which usually describes loss or energy
ebbing away, does not lead to the death of a system, but rather it is part of a process
by which a system lets go of its present form so that it could reorganise in a form
better suited to the demands of its changed environment (Wheatley, 1999). These
systems are not characterised by form or function, but rather by process structures that
best meet their current need.
Dissipative structures are environmentally dependent in that their behaviour is
determined by boundary conditions. This is in contrast to systems in a state of
thermodynamic equilibrium in which system behaviour is determined by its initial
state. The notion of environmental dependence goes beyond the general systems view
of the system as being open to its environment; in the dissipative structures
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
19
_____________________________________________________________________
framework, interchange is an essential factor underlying the system’s viability. The
system, like a living thing is autonomous but this does not mean they are isolated
from their environment. ‘On the contrary, they interact with the environment through
a continual change of energy and matter’ (Capra, 1997). Dissipative structures in
states of extreme instability, or chaos, may see morphogenesis occur, rather than only
quasi- or marginal transformations and adaptations (Capra, 1997; Mathews et al.,
1999). The system and its environment are therefore inextricably intertwined. This
implies that the system exhibits both a degree of self-determination and a degree of
dependency, and that these features are intrinsically related to each other. If we were
to consider a social organisation, we could say that its internal environment and its
external business environments are linked and there is a degree of dependency
between the two. Anything that disturbs the system assists it in self-organising itself
into a new form of order. When the external environment offers new information, this
information may be taken inside the system where it grows and changes. This new
information may grow to such an extent that the system can no longer ignore it and
real change can occur (Wheatley, 1999).
Mathews et.al. (1999) outline four central characteristics, or elements, of the
dissipative process. These include the system reaching a single bifurcation point after
increasing disequilibrium (element 1). At this moment, the moment that has been
called the bifurcation point, the system, far from equilibrium, falls apart and dissolves.
This dissolution does not herald the death of the system but rather its self-organisation
to a higher level of complexity that means the creation of a new form that enables it to
better deal with the present environment. At the point of bifurcation the system either
attempts to rely on extant mechanisms to dampen increasing oscillations without
success leading to eventual system decline or failure, or it engages in a process of
symmetry breaking and transformation by exploring alternative existences (element
2). The period of experimentation with alternate behaviours and structures (element
3) leads to a resynthesis and reformulation around the new structure (element 4). As
the new equilibrium becomes misaligned with its environment, the process is repeated
(Mathews et al., 1999). These systems therefore possess the innate ability to
reorganise themselves to deal with new information. For this reason they are often
called self-organising systems (Wheatley 1999) or complex adaptive systems
(Doolittle, 2002). They argue that the viability of self-organising systems comes from
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
20
_____________________________________________________________________
neither form nor function attributes, but rather from process structures that permit
reorganising into different forms in order to maintain an identity. It is not necessary
that the new structural arrangements develop in the direction of greater complexity.
The important characteristic of the emergent structure is that the new arrangements
are able to contend with increased complexity; they are not necessarily more complex
in and of themselves.
Mathews et.al. (1999) also argue that highly developed systems have elaborate
mechanisms such as negative feedback loops and buffering mechanisms, to dampen
the effects of internal and external fluctuations and to maintain equilibrium.
However, a system that continually chooses to use these buffering and dampening
mechanisms to withstand change and restabilise equilibrium, they argue, will become
increasingly misaligned with its environment. These could be termed as actions that
permit the system to cope but do not address the underlying need to change caused by
changes in the environment: they can only provide short-term solutions. In business
organisations this can be evident in an increasing reliance on ‘work arounds’ to get
things done because the existing systems don’t provide the required outcomes any
more. This can only persist for a time before the excess capacity of the system is
drained and the system collapses.
Gell-Mann (1994) states that a complex adaptive system acquires information
about its environment and its own interaction with that environment, identifying
regularities in that information, condensing those regularities into a kind of ‘schema’
or model, and acting in the real world on the basis of that schema. In every system,
there are various competing schemata, and the results of using a schemata in
interaction with the real world, feed back to influence the competition among those
schemata (Gell-Mann, 1994).
Doolittle (2002) proposes that complex systems or complex adaptive systems
involve phenomena which may be characterised by the interactions of numerous
individual agents or elements, that self-organise at a higher systems level and then, in
turn, show emergent and adaptive properties not exhibited by the individual agents.
Agents are what a complex system is composed of and interact between themselves,
other agents and the environment (Stonier & Yu, 1994). They are individual active
elements of a system that possesses an internal state comprised of internal models,
rules and strategies that influence and guide the agent's behaviour (Doolittle, 2002).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
21
_____________________________________________________________________
Each agent behaves according to some set of rules. These rules require the agents to
adjust their behaviour to that of other agents. In other words, agents interact with, and
adapt to, each other (Stacey, 2000).
Self-organisation refers to the spontaneous self-generation of order from
within an open system of agents (Doolittle, 2002). Self-organisation is order that
arises from the interactions of the agents and is not imposed on the agents by some
external force. Thus, as agents interact, they organise themselves according to local
parameters and self-interest, and from this self-organisation a more global or higher
structure emerges (Doolittle, 2002). Open systems are those systems that need and
receive energy to maintain their order. This maintenance of order places the system in
a state that is far from equilibrium, with equilibrium being the degenerative state that
the system would inhabit if there was no influx of energy.
Complex systems take in data from their environments, find regularities in the
data, and compress these perceived regularities into internal models that are used to
describe and predict its future (Doolittle, 2002; Gell-Mann, 1994). These internal
models and schemas are what agents function through. An internal model or schema
is created or modified as the agent gains experience. As the agent gains experience,
the agent abstracts the regularity from the randomness within the experience and
begins to form internal models that describe these regularities. The agent may
construct several internal models or schemas of a given experience, each internal
model or schema providing a potential explanation of the experience. Often, internal
models or schemas are described by a set of rules. These internal models are then
used by agents to describe current events or behaviours, predict future events or
behaviours, and prescribe subsequent behaviour. As agents interact with other agents
and the environment, the agent's internal models and schemas self-organise and
emerge. In this process, the agent's interactions with other agents and the
environment serve as evaluations of the agent's internal models and schemas. If an
agent repeatedly exhibits a behaviour that is counter-productive, based on an internal
model or schema, then the internal model or schema is modified, discarded, or
ignored. If, however, the agent repeatedly exhibits a behaviour that is productive,
then the internal model or schema that is responsible is retained and becomes
dominant (Stacey, 2000). This is also called selection pressure, where the real world
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
22
_____________________________________________________________________
exerts pressure on the agent to select the internal model or schema that consistently
produces favourable results (Doolittle, 2002).
However, the twin goals of predicability and control may be theoretically
impossible (Mathews et al., 1999). There is the question of whether social reality can
be reduced to properties of individuals and their subjective interpretation of personal
experiences, or whether there are characteristics of collective units that are somehow
more than and external to the aggregation of subjective interpretation. This concept
may be relevant for the analysis by personnel within an organisation with respect to
externally imposed changes and resultant understanding. In some ways, the findings
of Mathews, White and Long represent disconfirming evidence of what we are
seeking to show in this report.
Adaptation refers to the changes in internal models or schemas that improve
the performance of the agent, whether that performance is reproduction, survival,
money, or knowledge (Doolittle, 2002). Adaptation in complex systems could be
called experience that is gained as time passes so that the system can make better use
of its environment for its own ends. It also means that the system is capable of
accommodating unpredictable changes or disturbances, whether these arise from
within the system itself or from the external environment (Stonier et al., 1994).
Doolittle (2002) and Kauffman (1992), suggest that an agent that is capable of
repeatedly selecting internal models or schemas that are favourable is considered fit,
or to have fitness, in relation to the environment in which the agent exists. However,
environments do not remain static, thus an agent's level of fitness is always in a state
of flux. This state of flux requires the agent to continually monitor and modify their
internal models and schemas as the environment changes, a process known as
adaptation (Doolittle, 2002; Kauffman, 1992). System dynamics is the term given to
the feedback structures, methods, and outcomes of the interactions between the
interdependent elements, or agents, that make up a system (Sterman, 2001).
Doolittle (2002) also proposes that complex systems exhibit evolutionary
processes in that these internal models are subjected to selection pressures in the
context of specific environmental conditions resulting in changes to the internal
models over time (Doolittle, 2002). The term ‘compression’ he argues, can be used to
describe the process of changing recognised patterns of regularity into internal
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
23
_____________________________________________________________________
models. Compression results in abstractions or generalisations of experience, not a
verbatim record.
Finally, Doolittle (2002) suggests that the emergent characteristics of a
particular complex system frequently form the individual agents in a higher level
complex system. Emergence can be defined as an enigmatic process whereby
fundamental agents produce surprising and unpredictable meta-agents or behaviours
(Doolittle, 2002). A meta-agent is described as an assembly of lower agents that form
a new agent at a higher level in the hierarchy, while an aggregate behaviour would be
a behaviour that is comprised of other more fundamental behaviours. Agents at one
level of the hierarchy interact with each other, and other agent types, and through this
interaction an emergent global structure, or aggregate system of meta-agents or
behaviour emerges.
Doolittle (2002) believes that upon forming, emergent global structures and
meta-agents, then feedback to the lower level agents to influence the lower level
agents' interactions. An essential aspect of this process of lower level agents giving
rise to higher level agents is that the nature and formation of the higher level agents is
not predictable from an understanding of the individual behaviours of the lower level
agents (Doolittle, 2002). Emergent organisations are totally different from the
elements that constitute the system, and the patterns cannot be predicted solely from
the characteristics of the individual elements. This process of emergence, Doolittle
suggests, is deeply intertwined with the concept of self-organisation. Self-organising
phenomena are inherently decentralised due to the local interactions of many
individual agents, with order emerging without centralised control structures
(Doolittle, 2002).
Doolittle (2002) proposes six principles of complex systems:
1. Complex systems are non-linear, open, and far from equilibrium.
2. Complex system behaviour involves adaptation to the environment, based
on experience.
3. Complex system behaviour is a function of internal models or schemas that
are the result of perceived regularities in experience.
4. Emergent global complex system behaviour involves the aggregate
behaviour of agents.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
24
_____________________________________________________________________
5. Internal models and schemas are actively constructed, self-organised and
emergent.
6. Internal models and schemas are a function of both agent interaction and
existing internal models and schemas.
Therefore, Doolittle argues, complex adaptive systems are non-linear, open,
and far from equilibrium systems that are comprised of interdependent agents whose
interactions, based on internal models or schemas, lead to self-organised and emergent
behaviours that have dynamic fitness levels in response to selection pressures exerted
by changing environmental conditions, thus facilitating the need for adaptation
(Doolittle, 2002).
We can therefore see that complex adaptive systems require a new way of
thinking about systems, one that is non-linear and partly intuitive. We have seen that
the theory takes some of its concepts from nonequilibrium physics and the behaviour
of dissipative structures. The major points that we can draw from this discussion are
the importance of boundary conditions on the system and the behaviour of individual
and groups of agents within the system. These are relevant because in our
understanding of organisations we can see how environmental changes can impact on
an organisation at various levels, and that members, or agents, within that organisation
interpret the new information and create schemas that allow the organisation to adapt
to its changing environment. This has provided an initial way of viewing
organisational behaviour in a new light.
Biology and genetics
This section will discuss some of the biology and genetics roots of complex
adaptive systems and explore some of the concepts that have been developed as
metaphors to assist in other academic disciplines, such as the social sciences. The
section will firstly address information about organisms’ behaviour on the edge of
chaos before moving on to discussing some research findings in the fields of biology
and genetics. Finally the section will be concluded with comment on what this means
for my research.
Complex adaptive systems has, as been stated before, roots in numerous
disciplines. One discipline is Biology, and in particular molecular DNA and animal
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
25
_____________________________________________________________________
genetics. One researcher in this field, Waldrop (1992), suggests that complex systems
have acquired the ability to bring order and chaos into balance at what can be termed
the ‘edge of chaos’, where the elements of the system never quite lock into place, and
yet never quite dissolve into turbulence (Waldrop, 1992). ‘Chaotic’ refers to a state
where patterns cannot be made nor details understood (Lissack, 2001). On the edge
of chaos is where life has sufficient stability to sustain itself and enough creativity to
deserve the name of life. It is on this edge where new ideas and innovative genotypes
are challenging the status quo, and where even the most entrenched ideas will be
changed (Waldrop, 1992). It is on this edge that there is the constantly shifting battle
zone between stagnation and anarchy, the one place where a complex system can be
spontaneous, adaptive and alive (Waldrop, 1992). ‘A system is defined as chaotic
when it becomes impossible to know what it will do next. The system never behaves
in the same way twice.’(Wheatley 1999, p.22) By observing the behaviour of chaotic
systems over time an inherent orderliness can become evident.
Some researchers in biology (Kauffman, 1992) have proposed that entities
have self-organising properties that cannot be explained through Darwin's theory of
evolution, which restricts itself to organism’s changing purely in reference to their
external environments. In fact, Kauffman provides an alternative theory of evolution
which suggests that complex adaptive systems exhibit high spontaneous order. He
proposes that such order may enable, guide and limit selection thereby requiring a
theory which, “encompasses the marriage of selection and self-organization”
(Kauffman, 1992).
Kauffman’s research in genetics has seen the development of the concept of
landscapes. Rugged adaptive landscapes and rugged fitness landscapes have many
peaks, ridges and valleys and are metaphors used in evolutionary biology (Kauffman
1992). The term ‘landscapes’ has its roots in population genetics and the behaviour of
the adaptive walks of peptides to local or global optima (peaks) due to their fitness
values. This means that peptides, as complex systems, will seek positions in their
environments that are optimal. This biological metaphor may be useful in explaining
the behaviour of organisations seeking optimal positions in their external
environments. Although the biological metaphor may be useful for explaining
organisational behaviour it would be difficult to argue that agents in organisations are
predisposed to behave as peptides do.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
26
_____________________________________________________________________
Jensen (1998) has described the structure of biological systems and the growth
pattern of chemical reactions, as nonequilibrium systems, as self-organising systems,
where there is no control or manipulation by an external agent (Jensen, 1998). He
states that self-organised criticality exists where force is built up within a system until
it eventually overcomes a certain threshold, as in dissipative structures, when it
releases and forms a new configuration, ie the behaviour of earthquakes, sand piles
and rice piles (Jensen, 1998). A living system can be viewed as a network of
processes which are themselves made up of other processes. The entire network is
engaged together to form an entity that continually seeks its own self-renewal in order
to preserve its self (Wheatley, 1999). It is considered by some researchers that it is a
paradox that in living systems each organism maintains a clear sense of its individual
identity within a larger network of relationships that helps shape its identity. This
view stems largely from the geneticists.
A final aspect of the biological paradigm of complex systems is that for any
system to remain alive and keep growing it must continually generate information,
particularly from the external environment. How it collects information and how it
uses information is best described when considering the actions of agents and metaagents which were discussed in the previous section.
In summary, the scientific disciplines of biology and genetics provide some
useful metaphors to consider in discussing organisational behaviour as complex
systems. In particular, organisms surviving on the edge of chaos could be transposed
to the business environment where organisations are at the edge of surviving or
changing to a new form to meet the needs of a changing business environment. They
may do this through a process that is more than merely a response to changing
conditions; it may also include an improvement to it through internal capability. The
metaphor of peptide walks on rugged landscapes may be useful in describing
organisations’ searches for optimal positions in an environment. Lastly, the
ingredient of information is important for any system made up of multiple agents that
can all interact with the external environment in some way. Some researchers have
taken the biological and genetic metaphors and attempted to recreate the behaviour of
complex systems, mainly through the use of computers.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
27
_____________________________________________________________________
Complexity modelling
This section will provide a background to the stream of research in complex
adaptive systems that attempts to model the behaviour of complex systems. We must
ask whether the modelling of complex systems can offer any assistance to us in our
research question of aspects of complex adaptive systems assisting in our
understanding of organisational behaviour. The section on complexity modelling will
firstly address an area of study called system dynamics before moving on to discussing
agent-based modelling and artificial intelligence. Finally, I will attempt to distil
aspects of the research in complexity modelling that may be of use to my research.
One direction that has been taken by researchers in complex adaptive systems,
particularly from those with mathematical, physics and computing backgrounds is an
attempt to model the behaviour of complex systems (Axelrod, 1997; Sterman, 2000;
Wolfram, 2002; Zurek, 1990). System dynamics is one name that has been given to
an area of study that is grounded in the theory of non-linear dynamics and feedback
control developed in mathematics, physics and engineering. Since the tools of
systems dynamics are applied to the behaviour of human as well as physical and
technical systems, it draws on cognitive and social psychology, economics and other
social sciences (Sterman, 2000). Mathews, White and Long (1999) argue that
Newtonian reduction has been the basis of systems modelling: The behaviour of a
system can be understood and anticipated, or predicted, by identifying its components
and the causal links between them. This is therefore an area of study that seeks to
find a linear means of examining a non-linear problem.
As mentioned previously, in system dynamics there is an acceptance that
cause and effect are often distant in time and space. Furthermore, mental models are
used in system dynamics the same way as other researchers use schemas. Sterman
(2000) uses the concept of double-loop learning to describe the process of
assimilating information from the real world into these mental models or schemas.
There are, however, many failure points in these feedback loops and the decision of
any one agent, based on his or her feedback loop, is but one of many feedback loops
that operate in any given system (Sterman, 2000). Wollin and Perry (2002) suggest
that many factors can create instability in dynamic systems, including time delays and
negative feedback. Negative feedback loops encourage the system towards stability,
whereas positive feedback loops amplify small disturbances and drive the system
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
28
_____________________________________________________________________
away from equilibrium, allowing innovation and change (Wollin & Perry, 2002).
They raise path-dependence as an aspect of system dynamics and means that taking
one particular road often precludes taking others and determines where you will end
up, therefore actions are irreversible.
Agent-based modelling, which is computer simulation used to understand
properties of complex social systems through the analysis of simulations (Axelrod,
1997), is one method used by some researchers in an attempt to understand properties
and behaviour of complex adaptive systems, including social systems. Modellers
believe that computer simulation can model the dynamics of social groups. In some
models, Mainzer (1994) argues, intentional agents make choices that depend on their
individual preferences, expectations and beliefs as well as upon incomplete
knowledge of the past (Mainzer, 1994). He argues that in these dynamic ecologies,
where information is sought and analysis of this information occurs, incomplete
knowledge and delayed information will create phenomena such as well known
evolutionary patterns like fixed points, oscillations, or chaos (Mainzer, 1994). In
these model systems researchers have found that imperfect knowledge leads to what is
called an optimality gap, while delays in information access induce oscillations in the
number of the agents involved. Synergistic effects may arise by cooperation and
competition for finite resources by agents. Chaos in these models prevents the
development of any stable strategy of problem solving (Mainzer, 1994). What this
means is that in some manufactured models a reasonable facsimile of chaos can be
created.
In modelling, virtual worlds can be created where some researchers argue
there are fewer impediments to learning. Virtual worlds are formal models,
simulations, or ‘microworlds’ in which decision makers can refresh decision making
skills, conduct experiments and play (Sterman, 2000). Flight simulators are an
example of microworlds, where one important aspect is that particular variables can
be held constant. When attempting to model complex systems however, agents must
be given evolutionary capabilities such as knowledge of internal parameters or
knowledge of the agent’s environment such that self-organisation can occur (Stocker,
Jelnick, Durnota, & Bossomaier, 1996).
Some models, or games, have shown that agents have a capacity to learn and
explore, thereby avoiding their own mistakes and creating a large class of strategies
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
29
_____________________________________________________________________
that make no mistakes. Indeed the agents that use this class of strategies begin to
dominate due to their ability to find and exploit errors in other players (Stonier et al.,
1994). One assumption that this game is based on, however, is that the cost of
learning is negligible.
An interesting outcome of almost every modelling exercise is what Stocker
et.al. (1996) has termed a divergence syndrome. The divergence syndrome displays
an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions but is also a major component of the
driving force of chaotic behaviour; it is because of this divergence that ‘self-feeding’,
or acceleration of energy flow takes place in chaotic systems (Stocker et al., 1996). If
what occurs in modelling happens in the real world then we would expect to see the
same sensitivity to initial conditions and the acceleration of energy. Another of the
characteristics of modelling complex systems is that behaviours can not be linear
during time, and dynamically evolve during the simulation. Evolution capabilities
need to be given to agents when designing the system and permit the emergence of
structures, or so-called self-organisation (Stocker et al., 1996). This means that
models, in reality, are no more than that: evolution must be introduced such that selforganisation and emergence can occur.
Stocker et.al. (1996) use the term artificial intelligence, or AI, to describe
some models of complex systems that have been developed. Artificial intelligence
research includes the concepts of both intentional and reactive agents. Some of the
elements modelled in AI include aspects of the social environment and include:
physical characteristics, personality traits, previous experience, expectations, learning,
vision, goals, mental maps, norms of behaviour, and social interactions (Stocker et al.,
1996). Artificial intelligence is often used in the design of systems for human use
such as urban and regional planning, product design, and software and hardware
development. Artificial intelligence also has its critics, however who argue that
people do not necessarily follow simple rules, and if they did this would lead to
homogeneity or sameness, and not innovation and adaptability (Stacey, 2003).
This section on modelling has demonstrated what some researchers have
found in terms of complex adaptive systems. A number of aspects of this are relevant
to my research. Firstly, some researchers have attempted to demonstrate behaviours
that occur in complex adaptive systems with some success, therefore validating that
these behaviours can, and do, occur. Secondly, what the researchers have found is
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
30
_____________________________________________________________________
that these behaviours do not appear particularly useful in attempting to predict what
may happen given certain preconditions. In terms of my research, one useful outcome
is the proving of cause and effect often being distant in time and space. However,
system dynamics research confirms the importance of agent learning and interaction
through double-loop learning, and the creation of schemas or mental models. Finally,
the effect that incomplete knowledge can have on systems is also relevant. Therefore,
while some findings from modelling complex systems are interesting, the utility of the
models to my current research is limited, beyond explaining or confirming some of
the aspects of complex system behaviour. The next section on Military research
reveals how aspects of complex adaptive systems have been used in military settings.
Military research
This section will provide a background to the military references to complex
adaptive systems and explore some of the concepts that have been used in military
thinking. In military thinking there is considerable discussion about the chaos of the
warlike environment and aspects of leadership that are required to operate with
success in this environment (Beaumont, 1994; Beyerchen, 1992; Clausewitz, 1976).
The section will firstly address some of the research on the nature of war before
moving on to discuss military leadership in times of crisis, and then decision-making
in times of crisis. Some cultural aspects of armed forces will then be discussed before
describing several ways of coping in an unpredictable environment. Finally, the issue
of Air Force experimentation and some of the findings of the RAAF Cultural
Assessment Project will be addressed before addressing leadership in adaptive civilian
organisations and adaptive civilian leaders.
The chaotic nature of war has frequently been noted in military history,
science, journalism, literature and even doctrine (Beaumont, 1994). It has also been
addressed more recently in an Australian Defence Force publication the Future
Warfighting Concept (2002). Clausewitz, an early German military strategist, spoke
of the nature of war being an energy-consuming phenomenon involving competing
and interactive factors, attention to which reveals a messy mix of order and
unpredictability (Beyerchen, 1992). Notwithstanding military developments and the
introduction of new and more lethal technologies, frustration and disorder has
remained an integral dimension of modern warfare. Indeed every war is inherently a
non-linear phenomenon, where changes cannot be analytically predicted and where
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
31
_____________________________________________________________________
inputs and outputs are not proportional (Beyerchen, 1992; Czerwinski, 1998). Small
insignificant events on their own not being important can have critical and
disproportionate results in the larger scheme of things. This is consistent with the
view of cause and effect being distant in terms of time and space.
Information flows still occur in warfare and they create patterns that reflect
changing adaptations as time elapses and experience accumulates (Czerwinski, 1998).
Beyerchen (1992) believes that the tendency for military commanders to seek exact
analytical solutions does not fit the non-linear reality of problems posed by war, hence
their ability to predict the course and outcome of any given conflict is severely limited
(Beyerchen, 1992). Speed and feedback loops are attributes of non-linearity and, with
new information technologies such as the Internet, e-mail, and the CNN factor,
increase the non-linearity of both information exchanges and the events and processes
they cover (Czerwinski, 1998). Much of the chaos found in warfare relates to the
distance between the senior commander and the soldier and their visibility of what is
happening on the ground. In the Air Force this is often referred to as Situational
Awareness.
Beaumont (1994) suggests that leadership in times of crisis tends to drive out
the sensitivity to complexity, randomness and fuzziness that exposure to a broader
perspective would present. Since those in authority are usually of a practical bent and
driven by action, they are inclined to be impatient with attempts to complicate
decision-making processes or introduce uncertainty (Beaumont, 1994). Indeed the
blind adherence to military doctrine is a poor way of dealing with the complexity of
new and unique issues and a solution such as self-organisation appears to defeat
control as commanders think of it (Czerwinski, 1998). Analysts of combat decisionmaking have expressed surprise, however, that leaders who are aware of rational
decision-making paradigms have nevertheless tended to rely on intuition, impulse,
common sense, or nonrational logics (Beaumont, 1994; Beyerchen, 1992). By
intuition, Czerwinski (1998) believes, what is meant is not so much instinct, as much
as the product of experience provided by training and education, as well as military
and life experience itself. This is not inconsistent with the earlier definition of
intuition. In military situations the irony is that those who are more experienced, and
therefore have a more highly developed sense of intuition, are generally more senior
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
32
_____________________________________________________________________
and are often more distant from the battlefield. The more junior, with less time to
make decisions, are generally on the battlefield (Czerwinski, 1998).
Klein (1989) argues that the theories and ideals of decision-making that the
military has held for the past 25 years are inadequate and misleading, having
produced unused decision aids, ineffective decision training programs and
inappropriate doctrine. The culprit is an ideal of analytical decision making which
asserts that we must always generate options systematically, identify criteria for
evaluating those options, assign weights to the evaluation criteria, rate each option on
each criterion and tabulate scores to find the best option. This model is called the
concurrent option comparison, the idea being that the decision-maker deliberates on
several options concurrently. The technical name for this is multivariate analysis.
The other method is to consider different options and is called decision analysis. Both
methods do not work under pressure because they take too long, particularly in
changing situations (Klein, 1989). Klein suggests that there are different ways to
make decisions; analytical and recognitional ways. In recognitional decision-making
proficient decision makers are able to use their experience to recognise a situation as
familiar, which gives them a sense of what goals are feasible, what cues are important,
what to expect next and what actions are typical in that situation. They do not feel the
need to do any concurrent deliberation of options. This is called a recognition-primed
decision (RPD) (Klein, 1989). In his experiments, Klein found that when an officer
used experience to recognise the key aspects of the situation, a quick reaction
occurred. Once a decision-maker identifies the typical action, there is usually a step
of imagining what will happen if the action is carried out in this situation. If any
pitfalls are imagined, then the officer jettisons it and thinks about the next most
typical action. The experienced decision-makers are not searching for the best option.
They only want to find one that works, a strategy called "satisficing" (Klein, 1989).
Because there is no deliberated option comparison, experienced decision-makers may
feel that they are relying on something mysterious called ‘intuition’ and they may be
mildly defensive about it if they are questioned carefully. This is not a mysterious
process but rather a recognitional, pattern-matching process that flows from
experience. Klein’s RPD model shows that decision-makers handle decision points,
where there are several options, by recognising what the situation calls for rather than
by calculating the strengths and weaknesses of the different options. Where there is
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
33
_____________________________________________________________________
deliberation, experienced decision makers deliberate more than novices about the
nature of the situation, whereas novices deliberate more than experts about which
response to select (Klein, 1989). These studies have also found that teams will
behave much the same as individuals when it comes to decision-making. Other
researchers have found that organisations are never formed from a zero base, and all
players in a system will come with ‘the baggage, positive and negative, derived from
multiple histories.’(Snowden, 2002)
Klein’s RPD model focuses on situation assessment more than option
assessment and is more useful in situations where there is time dependency. The
disadvantages of the RPD model are that it is difficult to explain the basis of a
decision and it is difficult to reconcile conflicts. Furthermore, it cannot ensure
‘optimal’ courses of action and that is especially important for anticipating the
opponent’s strategies in preparation for the worst case (Klein, 1989).
Culturally, Beaumont (1994) argues, there are strong forces against creativity
in the armed forces. At the level where people enter the armed forces, the
mechanisms of recruitment and selection tend to seek personnel who are prepared to
conform. The armed services are generally viewed as the bastions of linear
orderliness and formal hierarchical authority. Rigorous physical conditioning, the
stressing of simplicity as a virtue, and the obsessional fixation on details in training
and socialisation tends to stifle initiative and individuality (Beaumont, 1994).
Military professionals are drawn to the predictability, order and security that military
institutions provide in peacetime, which means that they are generally slow to
experiment with new technologies and new ways of thinking. This is of concern
because at ascending levels of command, leaders and planners deal with a
proportionately greater array of events and contingencies, which sharply increase in
number and intensity in war. At each level of command, leaders face a wider array of
future possibilities, both immediate and long range. Furthermore, there are very few
opportunities for senior commanders to be creative and innovative, particularly in
peacetime. The bureaucratic machinery of armed forces is always more slow and
inflexible than the natural events that they are intended to control (Beyerchen, 1992).
This has been noted by some who propose that, in the future, forces must be flexible
and adaptable and be capable of responding rapidly to changing circumstances,
particularly where the range and complexity of threats increase (Houston, 2003).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
34
_____________________________________________________________________
Czerwinski (1998) argues that the challenge for security policy and military
affairs, arising from the unintended consequences of interactions, lies in rethinking
‘ends and means’ as the military conventionally view them. It is unlikely that linear
reductionism can be ceded, but it will be combined with non-linear reductionism to
form a more robust, versatile, and effective means, not to control, but to cope
(Czerwinski, 1998). The fiction of control in future warfare will be difficult for many
to address, while the considerable virtues of coping will just have to be learned to be
appreciated (Czerwinski, 1998). Indeed, he argues, we need to learn to just cope with
the environment rather than attempt to solve problems, and be satisfied with a
solution rather than the solution. Van Creveld (in Czerwinski, 1998) describes the
current command process as one where, confronted with a task and having less
information than is needed to perform the task, a military organisation may increase
its information processing capability which will lead, in turn, to the multiplication of
communications channels and to an increase in the size and complexity of the central
directing organ. This approach is inadequate and stands in danger of being selfdefeating (Czerwinski, 1998). Rather, he suggests, there can be five requirements for
success:
1.
The need for decision thresholds to be fixed as far down the hierarchy
as possible, and for freedom of action at the bottom of the military
structure;
2.
The need for an organisation that will make such low decision
thresholds possible by providing self-contained units at a fairly low
level;
3.
The need for a regular reporting and information-transmission system
working both from the top down and the bottom up;
4.
The need for an active search of information by headquarters in order
to supplement the information routinely sent to it at its command; and
5.
The need to maintain an informal, as well as a formal, network of
communications inside the organisation (Czerwinski, 1998).
The overall message in this suggestion is to distribute uncertainty because a
diverse workplace responds better to problems than a homogeneous one. A greater
variety of backgrounds creates a greater variety of solutions (Czerwinski, 1998).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
35
_____________________________________________________________________
Some current military commanders see experimentation as an important aspect
of future risk mitigation strategy. They see that the challenge is to understand the
cultural disposition of the organisation and to get the workforce to think and act
differently about some of these new and emerging concepts (Houston, 2003).
Research into planning for future Air Force capability has suggested one approach for
ensuring the organisation has what it needs to deal with future contingencies.
McLennan (2002) believes that this adaptation relies on being able to change Air
Force capabilities rapidly enough to keep up with changes in the environment
(McLennan, 2002). The idea of dissipative structures, outlined previously, provides a
clear explanation for the way in which the Air Force, as an entity, may be placed into
a state of disequilibrium through the impact of events in the external environment. It
has taken this information inside and made changes. These changes may result in
self-organisation to a higher, or lower, level of complexity through this dissipative
process. In this process the use of intuition is considered acceptable, and balances the
rational decision making processes. McLennan (2002) believes that the more one
understands intuition the more they are inclined to use it, but the question always
remains as to how we explain how we arrived at an intuitive conclusion. It is
nevertheless important to arrive at the best decision and not necessarily just a right
decision (McLennan, 2002).
Some interesting findings with respect to Air Force culture were found as a
result of the Air Force’s Cultural Assessment Project that was undertaken in 1997.
Firstly, it found that the Air Force culture is relatively homogeneous and survey
respondents thought that things should be different in the future than the way they are
now (Team, 1999). Designs about comment and feedback were considered restrained
and conservative and dealing with issues that were seen as being present rather than
future focussed. There was scepticism about the use of intuition and a preference for
hard measures. Furthermore, as an organisation there appeared to be an inward, rather
than external, focus and a predisposition towards traditional ways of working (Team,
1999). While this does not bode well for information gathering from the external
environment, the team focus in many work areas encourages agent interaction.
Glover, Friedman and Jones (2002b) believe that adaptive organisations,
whether they be military or civilian, are led by adaptive leaders who demonstrate
cultural competency, understand knowledge management, can create synergy from
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
36
_____________________________________________________________________
diversity and have a holistic vision (Glover, Friedman, & Jones, 2002b). An
organisation’s ability to adapt, they argue, is always in flux, perhaps because the
environment is dynamic. Leaders, it is argued, have to know the history of the
organisation and understand what has made it successful in the past. They also need
to conduct scenario planning to prepare for possible futures so that their organisation
can adapt in the future. Adaptive leadership is based on being open to the changes
going on around us and then making effective decisions in harmony with these
pervasive changes, including implementing these in appropriate ways (Glover,
Friedman, & Jones, 2002a).
Leaders and managers, if not all of us, have a tendency to interpret experience
as a series of events. We are taught from an early age that every event has a cause,
which in turn is an effect of some still earlier cause. The event-oriented, open-loop
worldview leads to an event-oriented, reactionary approach to problem solving.
Experiments in causal attribution show people tend to assume each event has a single
cause and often cease their search for explanations when the first sufficient cause is
found (Sterman, 2001).
James (2001) argues that managers of the future will need to be different from
managers in the past, and they will probably not cope as well with the challenges that
need to be faced (James, 2001). Older managers, James suggests, will tend to adopt
command-and-control methods, to achieve results through single-minded focus, and
tend to be demanding of employees. Newer managers are more likely to operate in a
collective fashion, attempt to balance work and leisure, attempt to be smart about
what they do and do not respond well to direction. Notwithstanding the change in
management styles, workplace challenges have not changed significantly in the postindustrial economy and there is still a need for redundancy or excess capacity if the
organisation and the individual are to survive in more than one environment.
James (2001) argues that older style managers could identify the need to
change from the organisation’s external environment, and force through the change.
If the change suited the internal environment then the change worked, when it did not,
the change mostly failed. Newer style managers, on the other hand, are less likely to
find anything outside the organisation to which to refer and as they are more
collective, more group-oriented and less hierarchical, if something goes wrong, this
type of management behaviour only amplifies the problem.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
37
_____________________________________________________________________
Organisations and managers face challenges with accepting external
information and interpreting this for the organisation. Organisational redundancy or
excess capacity is required in organisations, and individuals, to deal with change.
These concepts will be useful to our research in terms of how the Air Force has
interpreted information from the external environment, how its managers and leaders
have approached it, and whether the Air Force as an organisation has shown a
propensity for redundancy. This relates to Doolittle’s second principle of complex
systems, although no mention is made in the principles about redundancy.
A classic manager or military leader, in a crisis, will attempt to minimise
uncertainty and turbulence, will limit information flow and centralise decisionmaking. In a truly dynamic system, this impulse to increase control will fail. The
classic managerial model operates on the premise that a single individual can have
enough information and intelligence to direct all aspects of a complex, evolving
system. Complexity theorists have confirmed that the more effective approach is to
push control downward into the system, providing employees with a clearly
articulated vision and the information resources they need to effect local changes in
the system (Bergmann Lichtenstein, 2000b).
We can therefore see that complex adaptive systems have been researched and
have application in the military arena. There are several major points that we can
draw from this discussion, including the acceptance in the military of chaotic events,
particularly in times of warfare. Due to the need to operate in chaotic environments
military organisations may attempt to over-control events that they feel they can.
Leadership, decision-making and intuition are also related to our earlier comments on
the concepts of complex systems. Methods for dispersing uncertainty are consistent
with agent interaction as discussed earlier. This is also true for dissipating structures
and comment is made about the tendency for military leaders to attempt to dampen
oscillations in the organisation. These observations of behaviour in a military
environment are relevant because of where they fit in Doolittle’s model and some of
our earlier comments particularly regarding cause and effect being separate in time
and space. These observations are relevant because our research setting is within the
Air Force. Although military organisations are social organisations they are quite
unique in a number of ways. The next section will cover more generally complex
adaptive systems and research into social systems.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
38
_____________________________________________________________________
Social systems
This section will examine research used in applying the complex adaptive
systems metaphor to social and organisational settings. The section will firstly
address at what levels complex adaptive systems thinking has been applied before
moving on to a quick review of systems thinking and how it affects our way of
understanding organisations. Comment will then be provided on the issue of
organisations and their external environments and what individuals seek or gain from
membership of organisations. Some types of social systems models will be reviewed,
including the sociocultural view. Information flows and learning within organisations
are then discussed as are the issues of organisational change and the understanding of
market behaviour. Finally, some tools that can be applied to manage an organisation
as a complex adaptive system are offered. The conclusion of the section will revisit
Doolittle’s concepts of complex adaptive systems.
The study of complex adaptive systems can occur at various levels within
what can be broadly described as social systems. The focus has ranged from the study
of systems at a macro level (Axelrod, 1997) to more local or micro levels (Kauffman,
1992). Some work on complex adaptive systems attempts to cover the whole range
from macro to micro (Mainzer, 1994). What constitutes a system at one level will be
made up of numerous systems at a lower level.
Axelrod (1997) believes that at the macro level, a global system can be seen as
comprising of the behaviour and interactions between nation states and include the
social phenomenon of international politics, cultural conflict, and nationalism
(Axelrod, 1997). Indeed, Gregoire et.al. (1989) and Mainzer (1994) believe that the
complexity that is exhibited in highly industrialised society exists in the great number
of citizens and their relationships, its organisational substructures and their
dependencies (Gregoire et al., 1989; Mainzer, 1994). They have argued that the
adaptive possibility of societies is the main source allowing them to survive in the
long term, to innovate of themselves and to produce originality (Gregoire et al., 1989).
Wollin et.al. (2002) have also used a complex adaptive systems metaphor have with
business firms to help marketers better understand the behaviour of car manufacturing
firms in a global market (Wollin et al., 2002). In all these areas of research there is
reference to actors, or agents, and the interactions between actors or agents. They also
suggest that the large scale effects of locally interacting agents leads to the
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
39
_____________________________________________________________________
phenomenon of emergent properties of the system at all levels. Depending on how
the system is defined ie. all car manufacturers, relationships between the agents will
lead to emergent behaviour of the system. For example a downturn in the external
environment of the system of car manufacturers may lead to a reduction in the
marketing efforts of the car manufacturers to respond to the economic environment.
As discussed earlier, the Newtonian approach to viewing organisations is to
split them into their constituent parts and make each part work better and put the parts
back together again, rather than viewing the organisation as a system that must be
examined as a whole. Using this mechanistic metaphor though hides as much as it
reveals (Morgan, 1997). The Newtonian approach has traditionally been used to
study organisations. It is difficult, however, to view a system as a whole because
most of our training in analysis is based on Newtonian learning. It is also easier to
break a large, complex system into parts and deal with the parts individually.
Intuition though, has been put forward again as a way to describe how people can
grasp what changes are required in the complex system of an organisation. This
intuition, like that referred to in the military section, is a function of listening,
watching and picking up subtle cues and nuances in what is observed; it is an ability
to feel when something is not quite right.
To revert to the biological metaphor used earlier, Gharajedaghi (1999) has
proposed that the purpose of an organisation is to serve the purpose of its members
while also serving the purposes of its environment (Gharajedaghi, 1999). He suggests
that social organisations, besides being purposeful, are also living systems and
capable of self-organisation. Whereas biological systems primarily self-organise
through genetic codes, social systems self-organise through cultural codes: culture is
the DNA of social systems (Gharajedaghi, 1999). Gharajedaghi believes that a
system consists of all the interactive sets of variables that could be controlled by
participating actors. The environment also consists of variables that can affect a
system’s behaviour but cannot control it. Some variables can only be influenced
which means that a particular action is not sufficient to change anything; it is only a
coproducer. Those variables that can be influenced form a new region called the
transactional environment and include all the critical stakeholders of a system:
customers, suppliers, owners, bosses, and the members of an organisation themselves
(Gharajedaghi, 1999).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
40
_____________________________________________________________________
Gharajedaghi believes that the capacity of an organisation to adapt gradually
to a changing environment can lead to disaster if the adaptation is to a deteriorating
environment (Gharajedaghi, 1999). Organisations can often slowly bleed to death
rather than experience sudden deaths in what he calls the ‘Pan Am’ syndrome ie.
doing too little, too late. To understand organisations as complex systems,
Gharajedaghi believes we need to understand the flow and interface between active
elements of the system, and how the coupling function works. Furthermore, we must
understand the dynamics of the system; the time cycle, buffers, delays, queues,
bottlenecks and feedback loops.
Lissack (2001) suggests that the existence of managerial ‘gut feel’ decisions
after gaining holistic input may be relevant in complex organisations (Lissack, 2001).
In these organisations, he argues, managers may rely more on intuition and tacit
knowledge than on traditional analytic methods. Rather than using a decision process
that evaluates features of alternative options, decisions are absolute. The more into
the future the decision-maker is looking the more likely that the decision will be
holistic. This has implications for adaptation, which means watching for the next
wave that is coming, figuring out how it will work, and setting the organisation up to
take advantage of it. Computer game software development is an example of this.
Gharajedaghi & Ackoff (2001) believe that members join organisations to
serve themselves and unless the organisation serves them in return, they will not serve
it well. The suggest that because the members of an organisation can operate as
independent parts with individual choices, while acting as responsible members of a
coherent whole with a collective choice, the effectiveness of an organisation depends
not so much on managing the actions of individual members,(Gharajedaghi & Ackoff,
2001) as on managing the interactions among the members (Gharajedaghi, 1999).
There can be four types of relationships between members of organisations or agents;
conflict, cooperation, competition, and coalition. Through the various agent
relationships an iterative process occurs that changes structures, functions and
processes, all within the one organisational boundary. Each iteration of design yields
a greater understanding and more closely approximates the nature of the whole system
(Roth, 2001).
Social systems thinking. Social systems have been examined from the
mechanistic and organismic perspective, however, a further perspective, the social
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
41
_____________________________________________________________________
systems model has been proposed by Gharajedaghi et.al. (Gharajedaghi et al., 2001).
They argue that mechanistic theory is based on reductionism and cause and effect
explanations. It is the traditional way to examine organisations and social systems
and supports the control and coordination functions of management. However, when
the system is taken apart for analysis the parts do not work independently of the
remaining system and only the system’s structure is revealed rather than its functions.
Mechanistically conceived social systems are inflexible and suffer when faced with
rapidly changing external environments. Mechanistic organisations find it difficult or
impossible to be responsive to environmental changes. As a result, their effectiveness
suffers. Increasing ineffectiveness leads to reinforcement of their rigidity, closer
adherence to rules and regulations. This results in a vicious circle in which such
organisations become more and more dysfunctional.
In an organismic model, Gharajedaghi et.al. suggest, a social system is
conceptualised as an organism that has a purpose of its own: survival through growth
is taken to be essential. Contraction leads to decay and death. An organismic system
is dependent on its environment for essential inputs or resources. The head of the
organisation is seen as the brain that makes decisions on behalf of the remainder of
the organisation. To treat an organisation or any other social system as an organism
fails to recognise that a social system has almost complete control over its own
structure. In addition, the relationship that exists between an organism and its cells
and organs is very different from that between an organisation and its parts. One's
heart cannot decide for itself that it does not want to work or wants to work for
someone else (Gharajedaghi et al., 2001). The parts of a social system have purposes
of their own and display choice. Therefore, an effective social system requires
agreement among its parts and between its parts and the whole. An effective social
system requires consensus; an organism does not (Gharajedaghi et al., 2001).
Gharajedaghi et.al. believe that in a systems model, the whole cannot be
divided into independent parts without the essential properties of the system being lost
when it is taken apart. Furthermore, the parts themselves lose their essential
properties when they are separated from the whole. The performance of a system is
not the sum of the independent performances of its parts; it is the product of their
interactions. Therefore effective management of a system requires management of
the interaction of the parts, not their independent actions. Moreover, since a social
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
42
_____________________________________________________________________
system interacts with its environment, management of this interaction is also required
for it to function effectively (Gharajedaghi et al., 2001). In their development of a
social systems model, Gharajedaghi and Ackoff develop a behavioural classification
matrix based on their system types of passive, reactive, responsive and active.
Reactive systems are self-maintaining and react to changes so as to maintain their
state under different environmental conditions. They can react because what they do
is completely determined by the change in their environment. A responsive, or goalseeking, system is one that can respond differently to one or more different events in
one or more different environments and that can respond differently to a particular
event in an unchanging environment until it produces a particular outcome or state.
An active system is one in which an event or occurrence happens where there is no
change in the system’s environment ie. actions are self-determined or autonomous. A
passive system has one structure for all environments and one function for all
environments.
Sociocultural views. Gharajedaghi (1999) suggests that the members of a
sociocultural organisation are held together by one or more common objectives and
collectively acceptable ways of pursuing them. The members share values that are
embedded in their culture. The culture is the cement that integrates the parts into a
cohesive whole and allows the system to reproduce the same order over and over
again. Nevertheless, since the parts have a lot to say about the organisation of the
whole, consensus is essential to the alignment of a multiminded system
(Gharajedaghi, 1999). He believes that the sociocultural view considers five
principles that define the characteristics of, and assumptions about, the behaviour of
organisations viewed as sociocultural systems: openness, purposefulness,
multidimensionality, emergent property and counterintuitiveness. Openness is about
openness to the external environment. Openness is important because it is difficult to
predict the future. Purposeful systems have purpose and can produce the same
outcome in different ways in the same environment and can produce different
outcomes in the same and different environments. Multidimensionality is about
complementary relationships between parts of the system. Opposing tendencies in
different parts of the system not only coexist and interact, but also form
complementary relationships. The mutual interdependence of opposing tendencies is
characterised by an and instead of an or relationship. Emergent properties are
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
43
_____________________________________________________________________
produced by the interaction, not the sum of the parts; multiplication, not addition.
Finally, Leddick (2001) notes that counterintuitiveness is about actions that are
intended to produce one outcome can produce just the opposite and therefore
prediction is an uncertain science (Leddick, 2001).
In a sociocultural view, organisational processes depend on assumptions and
the dominant culture of the organisation. At the same time organisational processes
create the culture of the organisation. Furthermore, incompatibility between
organisational processes and technological or throughput changes often renders these
changes ineffective. The roles people play in sociocultural systems and degree to
which people believe they can contribute are important in this view.
Gharajedaghi (1999) suggests that sociocultural systems are held together, or
bonded by information and communication flows that maintain the bonds among
individuals and between the organisation and its members. These information and
communication flows are strongly linked to culture as it is culture that shapes people
by acting as decision defaults: that is how they will behave without information on
which to base their decisions. In sociocultural systems, the first step is a search for
information, knowledge and understanding about the internal system, and its external
environment. The second step is mapping or grouping observations and identifying
emergent themes. The third step is telling the story in such a way that is warns system
leaders and mobilises them to replace an undesirable future with one they prefer
(Gharajedaghi, 1999).
More generally, Gharajedaghi suggests, attempting to control information in
an organisation often results in the loss of its usefulness and the ability of people
within the organisation to interpret the information in different ways. The value of
information is often enhanced through its use and journey through networks, either
electronic or biological. The more the information is shared the more powerful it can
become which is captured in the phenomenon of the greater the number of brains
working on a problem the more likely it is that the problem will be solved.
Information networks are critical for organisations in this regard and some, more
experimental, organisations are moving towards less formal information flow
structures. Information flow is critical in self-organising organisations. It must
circulate freely so that everyone can interpret it, and it must come from sources that
are non-traditional. What comes through this is, rather than an unstable organisation,
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
44
_____________________________________________________________________
an organisation that has a deeper sense of clarity about what it is, what it needs and
how it is to survive. This type of organisation develops self-knowledge that makes it
more adept at working with its environment.
Learning and complex systems. The changes within organisations have
much to do with the agents or members of that organisation and the way they perceive
their situation. Bergmann (2000) believes that the way that individuals make sense of
their situation is through cognition. Cognitive understanding is generated through
one’s active participation in a project, group, or system (Bergmann 2000). Schon
described this type of learning as ‘generative’ and insisted that managers and all
decision makers in science and the professions must move beyond a purely rational
model of understanding to one that is transactional, open-ended, and inherently social
(Bergmann Lichtenstein, 2000a). Just as individuals can learn, Bergmann
Lichtenstein suggests, so too can organisations. Organisational learning requires that
an organisation has a theory of action that is either implicit or relatively explicit in its
mission, vision, and strategising processes and statements. Individuals within an
organisation, and their combined learning create organisational-level knowledge.
When this knowledge is shared in a dialectical, reflexive manner through mutual
inquiry and reflection, learning can be a self-organised emergent process. This is akin
to Doolittle’s agent interaction and internal models and schemas being actively
constructed and becoming emergent.
Further, constructivism, Hase et.al. (2001) suggests, is how individuals
construct knowledge for themselves. That knowledge cannot be passively
accumulated but is the result of active and adaptive cognitive processes undertaken by
individuals as they organise and make sense of their experiences (Hase et al., 2001).
This is consistent with the view that knowledge is a function of both the interaction of
individuals and the individual’s prior knowledge (Doolittle, 2002).
Self-organising activity can show characteristics described in three categories
that are steps in a process of change (Bergmann Lichtenstein, 2000a). Firstly,
interactive, reflexive processes allow a system to continuously develop and expand.
Secondly, at the peak of that expansion, when the current capacity of the system is
overloaded, a critical trigger tends to occur that causes anxiety and conflict to be
expressed. Thirdly, when the trigger is strong enough and when the process is selfreferenced, a new framework or theory of action will emerge that is literally self_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
45
_____________________________________________________________________
organised from aspects of the previous limited theory-in-use and from experiments
and learning that happen along the way. A quality of emergent systems is that they
are usually self-referenced or built on and connected to the previous experience of the
individual in context. This explanation shows how the self-organising process may
operate.
Self reference. A second process that is fundamental to self-organising
systems is that of self-reference. This means that when the environment changes and
the organisation identifies a need to change it will do so in a way that is consistent
with itself. The organisation will choose a path into the future that it believes is
congruent with who it has been (Wheatley 1999). ‘When an organization knows who
it is, what its strengths are, and what it its trying to accomplish, it can respond
intelligently to changes from its environment’ (Wheatley 1999, pp.85-6). There are
two critical elements that support effective self-organisation: a clear sense of
organisational identity as a reference and freedom for people to make their own
decisions.
Organisational structure. Malone & Laubacher (1989) believe that as
information channels have become more prevalent, through technological advances in
communications technology and computing, the need for hierarchical organisational
structures to facilitate communication has become less necessary (Malone &
Laubacher, 1998). Some large companies are breaking up into a number of smaller
companies and within large corporations, traditional command-and-control
management is becoming less common. Decisions are increasingly being pushed
lower down in organisations. Workers are being rewarded not for efficiently carrying
out orders but for figuring out what needs to be done and then doing it (Malone et al.,
1998). A central premise here is that when it is cheaper to conduct transactions
internally, within the bounds of the corporation, organisations grow larger, but when it
is cheaper to conduct them externally, with independent entities in the open market,
organisations stay small or shrink. Although simplistic, Malone et.al.’s premise is
contrary to other research on complex adaptive systems and organisations in that they
tend to grow through a process of self-organisation rather than shed bits of it system
that it still finds necessary to perform other functions.
As information can now be shared instantly and inexpensively among many
people in many locations, the value of centralised decision making and expensive
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
46
_____________________________________________________________________
bureaucracies decrease Malone et.al. argue. For this reason the dominant business
organisation of the future may not be a relatively stable, permanent corporation but
rather an elastic network that may sometimes exist for no more than a day or two.
This view is again, is contrary to other research and also the concept of sociocultural
organisations. Malone et.al. believe that small, ever shifting coalitions form for
particular projects and then disband. These coalitions work through electronic
markets and decide together on the shape and form of their organisation. They could
be described as self-organising, but not in the same sense as used for self-referencing
organisations. What may be consistent with self-referencing organisations is that
outcomes from these coalitions emerge from the individual actions and interactions of
the different players in the system. What the fundamental difference may be in this
instance is the time scale being applied to the interactions and organisational actions.
So, while consistent with Doolittle’s six principles, the time scale is more accelerated.
Boundaries between companies will become much less important in the
future(Malone et al., 1998). Again, this view is contrary to other literature reviewed
in this report where the view will be taken that boundaries between organisations, and
organisations and their environment, are particularly important when cultural issues
are included.
There is no doubt that the business landscape is changing and numerous
writers and researchers have attempted to apply aspects of complex adaptive systems
to organisations within the business environment (James, 2001; Pina e Cunha et al.,
2001). Some discuss the concepts of emergence, the dynamism and unpredictability
of the external environment, chaos and order, agents and actors and adaptiveness, and
hypothesise what this may mean for managers in the future (Pina e Cunha et al.,
2001). Some researchers believe equilibrium is a good state for organisations to be in
(Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001) whereas others believe that equilibrium
indicates the commencement of a decay process (Pascale, 1999). This shows that
there is some disagreement in the literature, particularly when it comes to complex
adaptive systems and organisations.
Complex adaptive systems and organisations. Bergmann Lichtenstein
(2000b) states that companies continuously regenerate themselves through adaptive
learning and interactive structural change. These efforts periodically result in the
spontaneous emergence of a whole new dynamic order, through a process of self_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
47
_____________________________________________________________________
organisation. The transformation process begins when the company’s systems are so
overloaded or underperforming that it can’t achieve its goals and it is unable to
function smoothly. At this stage a new configuration will emerge or the company will
fail (Bergmann Lichtenstein, 2000b). Positive self-organising, he argues, results in a
new emergent dynamic order that is based on principles, values, and elements that are
intrinsic, or self-referenced, to the system, rather than being imposed without
reference to the learned history and learning in the organisation.
The use of complex adaptive systems as a metaphor for the behaviour of
organisations has been adopted by some of the large management consulting
companies and some large service companies. Booz Allen and Hamilton and Westpac
are two that are pushing for a shift from command and control paradigms to chaos and
complex adaptive systems, and developing less rigid organisational structures (Fox &
Trinca, 2001). The move has led to the concept of management of the group rather
than management of the individual.
Royal Dutch/Shell has also embraced elements of complex adaptive systems
in setting its strategic agenda for the future (Pascale, 1999). Rather than being
satisfied with stable organisational activity Pascale saw that equilibrium equalled
death and purposefully disturbed their equilibrium, bypassing the bureaucracy on the
way, to initiate renewal activity. Accepting also that complex adaptive systems
exhibit a capacity for self-organisation and emergent complexity, the company
engaged the frontline troops to exploit untapped market opportunities. Understanding
that complex adaptive systems move toward the edge of chaos when provoked by a
complex task and that novelty emerges in the space between rigidity and randomness,
Shell reorganised to a more direct, informal and less hierarchical way of working
(Pascale, 1999). The Shell experience found that senior management could not direct
a living system, only disturb it. They found that experimentation, rapid learning and
seizing the momentum of success was a much better approach. While their leaders
provided the vision and established the context, solutions to ongoing challenges were
generated by the people closest to the action (Pascale, 1999).
What many researchers are attempting to do is provide new ways of viewing
organisations. Brodnick and Krafft (1997) offered eight postulates to assist in
understanding organisations. They are:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
48
_____________________________________________________________________
1.
All institutions are potentially chaotic;
2.
Institutions are attracted to identifiable configurations;
3.
Institutions move among dynamic states through a process of
bifurcation;
4.
The geometry of institutional attraction tends to be fractal in nature;
5.
Functionally accurate forecasting is impossible on a broad scale and
for the long term;
6.
Cause and effect and not closely related in time and space;
7.
Massive interventions may have insignificant results and small
interventions may have massive results; and
8.
Similar actions taken by institutions will never lead to the same result.
(Brodnick et al., 1997)
Fractal in nature means repeating but different symmetry. Although the
postulates offer an alternative way of viewing organisational behaviour they fall short
of explaining why such behaviours may take place.
Organisational change. There is a huge amount of literature on
organisational change, some of which draws on aspects of complex adaptive systems,
and some that acknowledges the limitations of some popular change methodologies
(Stace & Dunphy, 2001). Many existing change strategies ignore the complexity of
real life. In particular, the effect of time, process, discontinuity and context dynamics
may be considered relevant in any change effort. Furthermore, where more than one
change is being addressed at any one point in time, the effect of those changes may be
greater than the sum of the changed parts (Pettigrew et al., 2001). The use of the
Newtonian approach to organisational change efforts could be one reason why most
change efforts in organisations fail (Wheatley, 1999).
Beyond the bounds of individual organisations, some researchers have
attempted to apply complex systems thinking to industries rather than companies.
There are four types of complex systems that marketers have applied to model social
systems: deterministic chaos, self-ordering systems, complex adaptive systems and
flip-flop systems (Wollin et al., 2002). In a system of deterministic chaos, Wollin
et.al. argue that the forces of stability and instability work against each other and
sometimes the system can explode or become unpredictable. These systems usually
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
49
_____________________________________________________________________
have a relatively small number of variables. It can be argued that most social systems
have large numbers of variables and are more complex than deterministic chaos
(Wollin et al., 2002). Self-ordering systems emerge from apparent disorder through
spontaneous communication that leads to spontaneous cooperation and concerted
behaviour. Small differences or the micro-behaviour of some individual elements
cause unexpected results because not all rules or parameters are fully known. Minor
changes may result in very different patterns, because individual elements may affect
system outcomes (Wollin et al., 2002). There is not always a clear distinction
between self-ordering systems and complex adaptive systems however dissipative
structures are a form of self-ordering or self-organising systems.
Woollin et.al. (2002) propose that complex adaptive systems assume that
adaptation is possible. Order emerges from collective and individual interactions
rather than being imposed externally. Complex adaptive systems exhibit a multi-level
architecture or structuring of rules of interaction. What this means is that complex
adaptive systems are relatively stable at deep levels except when fundamental levels
are changed and the whole systems is ‘punctuated’ from its equilibrium (Wollin et al.,
2002). A flip-flop system is paradoxical because at its extreme of perfectly average
behaviour the system does not change when challenged, however, at anything less
than this extreme if can flip from one partial equilibrium to another, typified as a
punctuated equilibrium (Wollin et al., 2002). The closer a complex adaptive system is
to behaving in a perfectly average manner, the more likely this form of discontinuous
change will occur. Similarly, the closer a complex adaptive system is to perfectly
non-average behaviour, the more it approaches a chaotic or random system. A flipflop system can be treated as a sub-set of complex adaptive systems (Wollin et al.,
2002).
Marketers have asked the question, ‘can complex adaptive systems help
marketers understand markets that have exchanges linked or contingent with each
other, and so better manage in their markets?’ This question is similar in some
respects to research question 1. In attempting to answer this question Wollin et al.
found that many researchers have avoided complex adaptive systems because it deals
with a level of abstraction that may be too high for marketers within an individual
firm (Wollin et al., 2002). They also proposed that the complex adaptive system is
the most useful type for explaining a market because it is an open dynamic system,
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
50
_____________________________________________________________________
with a multi-level architecture of order. The market has four dimensions that make it
a complex adaptive system: it has micro-diversity, or small differences between
markets and firms; there is partial path-dependency with linked processes over time;
there are some non-average outcomes where average behaviour does not always
swamp or lock out individual firms or marketers; and the rules of interaction between
firms and marketers can change (Wollin et al., 2002).
Wollin et al., considered the four propositions with reference to marketers in
Honda. Agents within a system will show minor differences. These will occur at all
levels. This variety within the system matches the degree of uncertainty in the
external environment. Path-dependency has meant that some courses of action are
considered totally inappropriate; however returning to previous states is not an option.
The success or failure of the system is decided not just by that system but also by the
success or failure of the web it belongs to (Wollin et al., 2002). Rules of engagement
with other agents in the system can change, although most will remain the same,
however, feedback from positive and negative feedback loops must be recognised and
understood. Finally, it is difficult to control and predict outcomes in a complex
adaptive system.
Some research in complex adaptive systems has proposed how to manage an
organisation as a complex adaptive system. Zimmerman, Lindberg and Plsek (1998)
proposed nine principles for use by managers:
View your system through the lens of complex adaptive systems.
Build a good-enough vision.
When life is far from certain, lead with clockware and swarmware in tandem.
Tune your place on the edge.
Uncover and work with paradox and tension.
Go for multiple actions at the fringes, let direction arise.
Listen to the shadow system.
Grow complex systems by chunking.
Mix cooperation with competition
(Zimmerman, Lindberg, & Plsek, 1998).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
51
_____________________________________________________________________
The first principle advocates having managers and leaders move away from
using the popular machine or military metaphor for organisations to using the
complex systems metaphor. These machine and military metaphors ignore the
individuality of agents and the effects of interaction among agents. Of greater
concern is that they assume that all this can be tightly controlled through better (ie
more) specification (Zimmerman et al., 1998). Managers and leaders must learn to be
flexible and adaptable if their strategies are to be sustainable.
Zimmerman et.al. suggest that as there is interaction among agents in complex
systems, and since the detailed behaviour of a system is fundamentally unpredictable,
the second principle proposes that it does little good to spend much time in detailed
planning. In complex adaptive systems it is better to set minimum specifications and
a general sense of direction, and then allow appropriate autonomy for individuals to
self-organise and adapt as time goes by. Under common situations, leaders and
managers tend to over-specify things when designing or planning new activities in
organisations. If managers and leaders use the machine metaphor this is appropriate
since machines cannot think for themselves. In complex systems, however, minimum
specifications and purposeful variation is a more prudent course.
Clockware, Zimmerman et.al. suggests, describes the management processes
that are most common and involve operating the core production processes of the
organisation in a manner that is rational, planned, standardised, repeatable, controlled
and measured. Swarmware, on the other hand, refers to management processes that
explore new possibilities through experimentation, trials, autonomy, freedom,
intuition and working at the edge of knowledge and experience (Zimmerman et al.,
1998). Swarmware is needed in situations for which the traditional clockware
processes are no longer adequate for accomplishing the purpose, in situations for
which the purpose has changed, or in situations in which creativity is desirable for its
own sake.
‘Tuning your place to the edge’ is about: fostering the 'right' degree of
information flow, diversity and difference; connections inside and outside the
organisation; power differential and anxiety; forcing engagement instead of
controlling information; dealing separately with contentious groups; working
systematically down all the layers of the hierarchy in sequence and seeking comfort
(Zimmerman et al., 1998). Creative self-organisation occurs when there is just
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
52
_____________________________________________________________________
enough information flow, diversity, connectivity, power differential and anxiety
among the agents. Too much of any of these can lead to chaotic system behaviour;
too little and the system remains stuck in a pattern of behaviour. The trick,
Zimmerman et.al. suggest, is to gauge the right amount. Most contemporary
organisations have too little information flow and diversity and too much power
differential. Good leaders in a complex adaptive system lead not by telling people
what to do, but by being open to experimentation, followed by thoughtful and honest
reflection on what happens.
To uncover and work with paradox and tension, leaders and managers need to
accept that unusual events will occur. These will only appear unusual because
managers do not yet have a way to understand it. Creativity and innovation have the
best chance to emerge precisely at the point of greatest tension and apparent
irreconcilable differences. Leaders and managers therefore need to let these points of
tension and irreconcilable difference develop, rather than seeing them as aberrations
of the system and smoothing them over. Leaders and managers need to be prepared to
challenge sacred cows and be prepared to put the organisation at the edge of chaos,
where it can begin to reveal the hidden assumptions.
The sixth principle is about never knowing exactly what will happen with a
decision until it is made. Having multiple approaches to issues that are far from the
zone of certainty and agreement is therefore relevant and allows flexibility.
Researchers have clearly demonstrated how populations of organisms that are
learning (that is, exploring their fitness possibilities by changing behaviour) evolve
faster than populations that are not learning. Traditional managerial instinct to reach
consensus may be equivalent to inbreeding in a gene pool. A preferred approach is to
try several small experiments, reflect carefully on what happens and gradually shift
time and attention toward those things that seem to be working best (that is, let
direction arise). Stacey (1992) suggests that management is responsible for creating
the conditions that are favourable for change to occur (Stacey, 1992). These multiple
actions at the fringes also serve the purpose of providing additional insights about the
larger systems within which every system is inevitably buried (Zimmerman et al.,
1998). Successful experiments can go a long way in creating a foothold in a new
reality.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
53
_____________________________________________________________________
Zimmerman et.al.’s seventh principle, listening to the shadow system, is about
the shadow organisation that lies behind the formal facade of an organisation. The
shadow system has few rules and constraints and consists of hallway conversation, the
grapevine, the rumour mill and the informal procedures for getting things done.
Because the shadow system harbours such diversity of thought and approach, it is
often the place where much of the creativity resides within an organisation. The
shadow system is just a natural part of the larger system. It simply has more and often
stronger interconnections than those in the legitimate system. Snowden (2002) notes
that these informal systems and networks offer the organisation a competitive
advantage in terms of adaptation.
The eighth principle, that to grow complex systems you must use chunking, is
because complex systems are complex and are not easily understood or built in detail
from the ground up. Chunking means that a good approach to building complex
systems is to start small and experiment to get pieces that work, and then link these
pieces together. Of course, when the links are made, the new interconnections may
bring about unpredicted, emerging behaviours. This is the principle on which genetic
evolution proceeds. Continual reflection and learning are key in building complex
systems, however reflection cannot occur until action is taken, therefore action is
required. The only way to make a complex system that works is to begin with a
simple system that works (Zimmerman et al., 1998).
The last principle, mixing cooperation with competition, comes from natural
and biological systems studies. This has been described as the 'tit-for-tat' strategy
(Zimmerman et al., 1998). In complex systems agents tend to cooperate when they
receive cooperation in return. When cooperation is not reciprocated they can act
‘tough’ and punish other agents, however when other agents cooperate again, they
have the tendency to ‘forgive’. Under this strategy it is also possible for agents to be
clear about one another’s likely behaviour in response to their own behaviour
(Zimmerman et al., 1998).
Notwithstanding the apparent utility of the above principles, there is no
evidence to suggest that they make a difference. Lissack (2001) however, suggests
that some organisations are embracing some of complex systems thinking and this
appears to be working (Lissack, 2001). The longer employees and managers work at
developing a vocabulary to speak of the complexity they observe, the deeper the
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
54
_____________________________________________________________________
patterns, the words and the metaphors are embedded in their minds. The new
metaphors become intuitively “true” representations of reality for the people involved
(Lissack, 2001). Other researchers have suggested ways of managing in the ‘zone of
complexity’ including: ‘garbage can decision making, brainstorming and dialectical
enquiry, intuition and muddling through, search for error, unprogrammable decision
making, identification development and selection, and lastly, agenda
building.’(Stacey, 2001, p 4)
Some researchers have suggested that managers must use multiple ontologies
when attempting to understand organisations as one ontology will not necessarily
work in all situations (Snowden, 2005). Further, what is an acceptable management
approach when using one ontology may be a totally inappropriate approach when
using another.
Returning then to Doolittle’s model (Doolittle, 2002), where he outlines six
principles of complex systems, and holding other research up against these principles,
it is evident that there is considerable consistency in the literature. The theme of nonlinearity is recurring, as is the condition of complex systems being far from
equilibrium. The description and behaviour of dissipative structures is also consistent
with Doolittle’s first principle in that organisations exist in far from equilibrium
states. This is because complex systems are open to their environment, and receive
energy from the environment.
Boundary conditions of complex systems and their being environmentally
dependent with a degree of interchange between organism and environment is
consistently mentioned by writers in discussing complex systems. A consistent theme
is that the organism can reorganise itself to better deal with the environment based on
information from that environment. As the environment is dynamic and always in a
state of flux, an agent’s fitness also remains in a state of flux. The flow and use of
information is essential in such complex systems.
How information from the environment is used by the system is through
models or schemas that are based on the experience that the system has had with the
environment, particularly regularities in that information. Agents function through
internal models and schemas, or as some have called them, mental models. Research
in complexity modelling and military research has shown that agent’s can learn and
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
55
_____________________________________________________________________
develop intuition, which is based on experience. Culture is a name that has been
given to social systems’ internal models and schemas. The culture of an organisation
‘is the emergence of pattern in the form of habits. What we call culture is that aspect
of our emergent interaction that is iterated as continuity. (Stacey, 2003)’
Numerous agents or elements within systems interact and self-organise at a
higher systems level and show emergent and adaptive properties not exhibited by
individual agents. These agents act both within the system and between the system
and the environment. These factors are consistent with Doolittle’s fourth principle.
Agents interact among themselves to create different structures. This active
construction or self-organisation is not inconsistent with experimentation to explore
what model or schema may work best to cope with the changing environment. In
particular, this metaphor has been used successfully in describing the behaviour of
individual firms within a global industry.
The internal models and schemas used by agents are created by both their
interaction with other agents and the existing models and schemas which are based on
experience.
Doolittle provides a practical model that provides some understanding of why
organisations behave in the way they do. Other models suggest actions or results that
may be consistent with complex systems behaviour but stop short of explaining why
they might be useful. Further, most if not all of what other writers have said is
captured in some way in Doolittle’s model of six overlapping concepts. Doolittle’s
model is therefore considered the most legitimate and appropriate to use for my
research, since I am working with organisational consultants who have a good
understanding of organisational behaviour. Having said that, the eight postulates
proposed by Brodnick and Krafft (1997) provide a useful list of what may be seen as
outcomes of organisations that behave as complex systems and may prove useful in
describing to management consultants what may be seen as outcomes of complex
systems behaviour.
We can therefore see that complex adaptive systems have applications in
social and organisational settings. The major point that we can draw from this
discussion is that researchers have used the complex systems metaphor in an attempt
to understand, or, at least, describe organisational behaviour. This is relevant to my
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
56
_____________________________________________________________________
research because I will be attempting to determine whether complex systems thinking
can provide a practical tool to assist members of organisations to better understand
their organisation.
This completes the analysis of the existing literature in terms of its application
and relevance to the research questions. What it falls for me to do next is to illustrate
the gaps that there are between what has been done in the past.
Gaps in published research
This section outlines where there are gaps in the published research, and
specifically gaps that can be addressed through my research. The section will show
how although Doolittle’s six overlapping concepts of complex adaptive systems may
offer a useful construct for understanding organisational behaviour from a complex
systems perspective, this does not appear to have been tested through any empirical
study.
Unfortunately, as Lissack (2001) states, much of the work on organisations
that are attempting to use complex systems thinking has been descriptive and does not
necessarily offer examples that can be used in practical ways or reaching practical
conclusions (Lissack, 2001). Various writers, such as Wheatley, have merely pointed
out areas for further inquiry after drawing comparisons between complex systems
theory and organisations.
There is some disagreement between writers in the application of complex
systems thinking to organisations. This disagreement, rather than stemming from
fundamental differences in the utility of complex systems thinking to organisational
understanding, appears to be a result of the primary academic discipline of the writer.
For example, the discussion on how information is used within organisations is dealt
differently depending on the context of the writer.
There has been considerable work conducted on providing useful ways of
differentiating systems (Gharajedaghi, 1999) but this does not seem to have been
applied or tested in an organisational context either through examining cases or
primary research. Research into the applicability of complex adaptive systems in
organisations has been largely limited to interpretation of events in organisations
couched in complex adaptive systems terms. For example, Bergmann Lichtenstein
(2000b) describes some organisational change events in complex adaptive systems
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
57
_____________________________________________________________________
terms, but admits that emerging applications of chaos theory, which argue that change
is inherently unpredictable, have not yet been carefully tested in organisational
settings (Bergmann Lichtenstein, 2000b).
Whereas Zimmerman et.al. provide ten ideas that can be applied in a work
context to assist in thinking of organisations as complex systems, their use appears to
offer no rationale as to why a practicing manager would apply the ideas. Brodnick
and Krafft have provided eight postulates that explain organisational phenomenon in
complex systems terms, but again offer no reason for why these phenomenon occur.
Doolittle’s six overlapping concepts, however, allow the user to develop an
understanding of complex systems behaviour.
Much of the previous research had been theoretical and few researchers have
attempted to do more than observe some behaviours in organisations. There appears
to have been no specific research into explaining particular behaviour in
organisations. Thus the research question: “Is it possible to produce a practical tool
that uses the concepts of complex adaptive systems to assist members of organisations
to better understand their organisation?” has not been answered in general or specific
terms and begs further research.
Conclusion
The aim of the chapter was to consider existing research and literature that
informs the research question: “Is it possible to produce a practical tool that uses the
concepts of complex adaptive systems to assist members of organisations to better
understand their organisation?” The literature was grouped into various sections that
moved from the general literature on complex adaptive systems to the more specific
area of complex adaptive systems and organisational understanding.
The chapter has examined some of the existing research into firstly the
complexity sciences and secondly various attempts to apply them to organisational
understanding. We have seen that research into complex adaptive systems is wide
ranging, from being highly scientific, to more general. In some of these research
areas, particularly genetics and DNA research, the link to their application in social
organisations is not always immediately discernible. In more general research aspects
such as the behaviour of dissipative processes and the use of information from the
environment, strike a chord with how organisations have been seen to behave.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
58
_____________________________________________________________________
The major gap in examining much of the literature is that no empirical study
has been conducted. Either descriptive efforts have been made to explain what has
happened in complex systems terms or suggestions for further examination have been
made. Many writers approach the application of the complexity sciences to
organisational behaviour but few venture into empirical research. For example,
Malone and Laubacher make assumptions about the future of organisations in an
information age, James discusses challenges for different types of managers in the
future, and Bergmann discusses research previously conducted by Schon.
After reviewing the relevant literature, it appears there has been little effort to
research organisational understanding within independent organisations. This is what
this report will address.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
59
_____________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Now that Chapter 2 has provided a contextual background to complex
adaptive systems and how it relates to organisational understanding, Chapter 3 will
discuss the research methodology that will be used in this research. Whereas Chapter
2 has unearthed some research issues, this chapter will focus on the data collection
required to address these issues (Perry, 1998). This chapter will be presented in eight
sections, commencing with this introduction and then moving on to the selection and
justification for employing action research as the research methodology. The unit of
analysis and cycle design will then be covered, before moving on to discuss the design
of the focus group and the collection of the data. How the data will be analysed will
be described before ethical considerations and limitations are addressed. Some
aspects of the research gathering process will be included in appendices to the
chapter, as recommended by Perry (Perry, 1998). The structure of the chapter is
shown diagrammatically below.
Introduction
Conclusion
Selection and
justification of
action research
Ethical
considerations
Unit of analysis
Design of focus
group
Analysis of data
Collection of data
Figure 3 – Diagrammatical Structure of Chapter 3
The research seeks to examine organisational understanding from the
perspective of complex adaptive systems. Although there has been significant
research into the theoretical aspects of this topic as shown in Chapter 2, there are few
empirical studies that consider the application of the theory to organisational
understanding. In an effort to take this further, this research is designed to examine
whether using the generative metaphor of complex adaptive systems will assist in
organisational understanding.
The first research question, introduced in Chapter 1, is central to the main
theme of this report. It is the largest question to be addressed and will have a multi_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
60
_____________________________________________________________________
faceted answer. The answer will include a number of aspects of how complex
adaptive systems assists, or does not assist, in understanding organisations. The first
research question is:
Is it possible to produce a practical tool that uses the concepts of complex
adaptive systems to assist members of organisations to better understand their
organisation?
The second research question focuses on the practical application of a tool or
tools that assist in organisational understanding. It seeks to test, at the conceptual
level, the practicality of a complex adaptive systems tool that will assist organisational
understanding in the organisation. The second research question is:
If it is possible to produce a practical tool, does it work?
This chapter will show that action research is the most appropriate research
methodology to use in answering these research questions. The first section on
Selection and justification of action research will demonstrate that, for the research
questions I have developed, action research is the most appropriate research
methodology. The section on Unit of analysis will show how the research situation
was chosen, the period of time over which the research was conducted, and the six
cycles conducted. The next section will show the format of the focus group workshop
and the format for the conduct of the focus groups over the six cycles. The Collection
of data will then be explained from both a process and a content perspective. How the
analysis of the data will be conducted is then explained before addressing ethical
considerations. A conclusion will follow to complete the chapter.
Selection and justification of action research
This section will firstly consider the topic of research and its relevance to the
Air Force in particular, and to the contemporary business environment in general. It
will then move on to explain why action research was selected as the most appropriate
methodology for addressing the two research questions. The section will then explain
how action research works as a valid research methodology and how it can address
the research questions.
The purpose of this study is to attempt to show that by applying aspects of
complex adaptive systems to the work conducted by internal management consultants
they will better understand their client’s organisations. If better organisational
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
61
_____________________________________________________________________
understanding is achieved then there is a greater possibility that their client will be
assisted. This is important for Air Force due to the amount and extent of change that
is occurring in the organisation. In general, change appears to be the only constant in
most organisations in the current environment.
There is an ongoing challenge to find useful ways of describing organisational
behaviour in the Air Force. There is also a concern that by changing one part of an
organisation’s system may result in a negative impact on another part. This research
aims to examine a different context for attempting to understand organisational
behaviour; that of using the generative metaphor of complex adaptive systems. For an
organisational understanding model to have practical application, however, an
understanding of a ‘real’ organisation must be demonstrated. In this respect, I have
had first-hand experience of the internal management consulting in the Air Force and
the research is carried out within this organisation. The research that is conducted
should not only go a long way to better explaining organisational understanding in the
Air Force in the first instance, but also provide a useful lens through which to
examine organisational understanding in other organisations.
Indeed, leadership of change is an important issue, particularly in a military
organisation. Now, and in the future, organisational leaders will be required to learn
how to facilitate, or lead, change through drawing on the combined knowledge,
learning, and support of their subordinates. In this regard, change in the future will
require a higher level of participation and action by personnel within an organisation.
Indeed there is no higher priority for a sustainable future than for an organisation to
design pervasive strategies to support ‘learning to learn’ (Zuber-Skerritt, 1991).
There is therefore a need to answer the research questions posed now, if the
Air Force is to be effective in the future.
Due to the nature of the research problem and the research questions, an
interpretive and qualitative research paradigm is required. Sankaran (2001) states that
qualitative research has a number of characteristics which include: a focus on
interpretation rather than quantification; an emphasis on subjectivity rather than
objectivity; flexibility in the process of conducting research; an orientation towards
process rather than outcome; a concern with context regarding behaviour and situation
as inextricably linked in forming experience; and finally, an explicit recognition of the
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
62
_____________________________________________________________________
impact of the research process on the research situation (Sankaran, 2001). As the
research questions I am posing do not seek a quantitative answer, it is not appropriate
to use a quantitative research process.
Traditionally, it is held that research processes have three main components:
ontology, a theory of being or a view of things ‘as they are’; epistemology, a theory of
knowledge, including a theory of how knowledge is acquired; and methodology,
theory of how research is conducted (McNiff et al., 2000). Further, most scientific
research processes can also be categorised into one of four major research paradigms:
positivism, constructivism, critical theory, and realism. In the positivist paradigm the
researcher is required to act in a value-free way to empirically test aspects of a single
external reality. This is done through establishing cause-effect relationships and uses
quantitative techniques to verify assumptions. Constructivism posits that truth is
subjective and based on perceptions of reality. In this paradigm, the researcher
becomes an active participant and research subjects use their experiences to form the
substance of the research while the researcher assists in the process. Critical theory
suggests that social realities are based on historically situated structures and the focus
of research is on the analysis of social transformation. In critical theory research the
researcher and the object being researched are linked, with the researcher influencing
inquiry through his or her values. The main research tool is the interpretive capacity
of the researcher. Realism, or post positivism, assumes realities are assumed to be
real and external and is concerned with the real world as it actually exists, however it
is so complex that only parts of it can be observed. Several perceptions of reality are
required to seek a relativistic and shared understanding of phenomena.
Critical theory is suitable for the research being considered here, as the
researcher must work closely with the subject group before writing up a public report,
or thesis, to reflect the experience of the process. Whereas empirical research aims to
test a hypothesis by demonstrating a cause-and-effect relationship between events,
interpretive research aims to produce descriptions of what is happening in a particular
set of circumstances. Action research aims to find ways of improving social situations
by improving personal understanding in order to take appropriate action (McNiff et
al., 2000). The research paradigm of realism is also appropriate for the conduct of
action research because it deals with the real world as it actually exists. Under this
paradigm, a relativistic and shared understanding of phenomena is desired and data
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
63
_____________________________________________________________________
collection methods of focus groups can be used to achieve this. The research to be
conducted here is attempting to understand a complex, real-world situation that is
context-dependent. It will involve focus groups with people who are knowledgeable
in a particular area of endeavour. For that reason case study research or action
research must be considered as the prime research methodology.
Another research approach to address the research questions was initially
considered; that of embedded case studies. Indeed, it was contemplated to the extent
that a pilot interview case was conducted. The case study methodology is often used
to investigate a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, when the
boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident, and where
multiple sources of evidence are used (Yin, 1989). The pilot interview ultimately
constituted exploratory research and was conducted to clarify any ambiguous
problems (Zikmund 2000). Lessons were learned from the pilot interview, both in
terms of research design and also field procedures (Yin, 1989). The embedded case
study methodology was ultimately dropped and will be discussed next.
An interview protocol and script were developed prior to the interview, and,
with the permission of the interviewee, the interview was audio taped. My supervisor
and I reviewed the tape of the pilot interview with a senior Air Force leader. My
supervisor and I became convinced that this form of data collection was unlikely to
produce the data that I was seeking to examine. The prime reason for this was that I
was inferring the utility of complex adaptive systems attributes in understanding
organisational behaviour rather than stating them as attributes. Unless I did this, my
findings could be criticised as applying to any one of many management theories.
The reason that this was not done originally was the limited time available to
interview senior people. The process of confronting the interview subject about the
attributes of complex adaptive systems and then to get their view of its utility would
take too long as I would need to get the respondents to say what aspects of complex
adaptive systems they found most useful, and were willing to try using. To avoid this I
would need to ‘educate’ the respondents about complex adaptive systems before
asking them the questions and would make the interview process too long. The
conduct of the initial pilot study, it could be argued, was, in essence, the first
rudimentary cycle in my action research methodology.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
64
_____________________________________________________________________
What I decided was that in order to minimise the time to collect the relevant
data, I would need a sample that was knowledgeable about organisations and working
within them. This would make the educative aspect of the process more efficient. For
that reason the decision was made to use action research as the research methodology
and to use members of the Management Services Agency as members of the focus
groups. Members of the Agency are knowledgeable in management consulting
matters and able to comment on the utility of attributes of complex adaptive systems
to organisational understanding. They may also find the educative process of use in
their work.
Due to the educative aspect of the process I could not use testing
methodologies, for example quantitative methods or surveying. One of the emergent
factors from my literature review into complex adaptive systems and the behaviour of
complex adaptive systems was that the process of action research lends itself to the
use of this metaphor. For example, ‘being open to experimentation followed by
thoughtful and honest reflection on what happens’ is all about action research
(Zimmerman et al., 1998). Furthermore, there was a need to use a research
methodology that was responsive, which is what action research provides (Dick,
1993). In terms of my subject group, internal management consultants, it has been
argued that action research lends itself to people who work as agents of change, as
they can use it as part of their normal activities (Dick, 1993).
Other research approaches, such as positivism, gain their control,
standardisation, and objectivity through the use of numerical and statistical
procedures. This, however, sacrifices flexibility during a given experiment and a loss
of effectiveness and outcomes as a result. Action research is the relevant research
methodology where responsiveness is required. The experience of the exploratory
research indicated that, due to the nature of the material under discussion, it was
essential that I be involved, and actively participated in the action research process.
This has been found by other researchers (Sankaran, 2001). The action research
methodology permits change as further information is gathered so that the final
outcome provides maximum use to the workplace. It is what allows the researcher to
improve both action and research outcomes through a process of iteration (Dick,
1993; Sankaran, 2001). Action research regards practice as a creative, adaptive
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
65
_____________________________________________________________________
process of responding in a thoughtful way to personal-social situations (McNiff et al.,
2000).
As is the case with numerical methodologies, the repeated cycles of action
research allows the researcher to converge on an appropriate conclusion.
Conventional research sacrifices responsiveness in the interests of achieving
replicability. Action research values responsiveness over replicability, because
otherwise it is very difficult to achieve action as part of the research (Dick, 1993).
The positive aspects of using action research within an Air Force setting is that my
results are specifically useful to Air Force.
New action-oriented epistemologies use a dialectical form of logic that resists
closure. It is a logic of question and answer, to-and-fro, where a solution always
contains a new problematic, where an end state is always a new beginning (McNiff et
al., 2000). The research element of action research requires the researcher to observe
and monitor their actions and to reflect on them. Monitoring and reflecting on
practice generates a theory. Because the theory is the property of an individual
practitioner it constitutes a personal theory of practice. When a practitioner considers
the knowledge base of their work, and how they came to that knowledge, they are
generating their own epistemology of practice (McNiff et al., 2000). The research
element of action research provides a disciplined framework for helping people make
sense of their own learning. We monitor our actions, we reflect on them (and learn),
and we use our new learning to inform future action (McNiff et al., 2000).
There are three approaches to action research which differ in their ontological
assumptions and political aims. These constitute three action research paradigms,
which reflect the influence of wider paradigms discussed earlier. These three
paradigms are: interpretive, critical, and living theory (McNiff et al., 2000). They are
discussed in the table below.
Paradigms
Interpretive
Aspects of Approach
•
•
•
Encourages interventions in the workplace by managers and
consultants etc.
Aims to observe, describe and explain the research of those whom
they are supporting or otherwise mentoring
There are degrees of involvement in the research by the “external”
researcher, and degrees of involvement in the relationship between
the external researcher and research participants
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
66
_____________________________________________________________________
•
•
Sometimes the external researcher monitors their own relationship
with others; sometimes not
This approach often appears as a form of process management
Critical
•
Encourages participants to become aware of , and work to
overcome, the forces of domination and control that influence and
potentially distort their work practices
Living Theory
•
Encourages individuals to clarify the values base of their work, and
try to live up to their values in practice, recognising that this
inevitably gives rise to contradictions
Table 1 - adapted from (McNiff et al., 2000)
In the research for this report the interpretive paradigm is relevant for the work
with MSA teams. At a personal level, the research process is within the critical and
living theory paradigms. Key elements of the action research process applied include;
‘I, the researcher, am central to the process; I identify an aspect that I want to
improve; I imagine a way forward; I try it out and take stock of what happens; I
modify my plan in light of what I found and continue with the action; the process is
participative; and, the process is educational (McNiff et al., 2000)’.
The action research methodology lends itself to research within complex and
dynamic systems (Dick, 1993; McNiff et al., 2000). As organisations are complex
social systems and also dynamic systems, an appropriate research method was
required. Using the methodology itself requires action on the part of the researcher.
Practitioner action research has created its own knowledge base and established itself
as a legitimate research tradition (McNiff et al., 2000).
As Dick (1993) states, under action research the research question and
methodology are likely to be fuzzy at the beginning. This means that you are likely to
get an initial fuzzy answer. Your fuzzy answer needs to allow you to refine both
questions and methods, so that you can eventually converge towards precision. As
such I needed to demonstrate flexibility in my approach to the research, not only in
the initial phases of deciding upon an appropriate research methodology, but also
during the data collection process. For example, I did not know what response I was
going to get to my ideas and expected that I would need to change my approach to the
focus group structure and process during the research process to make it more useful
to myself, to the research subject and to the participants. While the data collection
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
67
_____________________________________________________________________
technique of convergent interviewing (Dick, 1998a) was considered as a way of
collecting data, due to my work situation and time limitations, focus groups were
considered the most effective way for collecting data. My intention was to experience
change, through the use of discussing complex adaptive systems with six different
management consulting teams. Due to the fact that I was unsure about exactly what I
would find, a more flexible approach to case studies was required. The approach
required a high level of participation and discussion. For this reason, and others
stated above, action research was chosen as the most appropriate research
methodology for this research.
Quality of research is usually judged on five criteria: construct validity,
objectivity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability. In action research,
construct validity can be enhanced by using multiple sources of data during data
collection, demonstrating a chain of evidence for data, and providing data providers
with the opportunity to review their input. By conducting six action research cycles
using a standard tool, multiple data sources were exploited. Furthermore, the
capturing of data on butchers paper during the focus group process permitted
participants to review their input as it was collected and afforded the opportunity for
them to correct misinterpretations.
Objectivity requires that research findings are logical, unprejudiced and
unbiased. The use of multiple sources of evidence and documented measures and
procedures were used in collecting the data for this research in an effort to
demonstrate neutrality and confirmability of data. Furthermore, triangulation will
occur through having a participant from the cycle 1 focus group act as an observer in
the sixth focus group and take notes on the difference observed between the first cycle
and the sixth cycle.
Internal validity is about reducing any characteristics that may result in error
and bias in the research results. Triangulation of data research methods was used to
improve internal validity by the use of an interview and six focus groups. Using this
number of data collection activities encouraged convergent lines of inquiry. Further,
as mentioned above, confirmation of research findings and data collected by focus
group participants occurred as it was collected. A chain of evidence during data
collection was used to increase internal validity. All data collected were saved and
transcribed and appear in appendices C through F. With internal validity one has to
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
68
_____________________________________________________________________
ensure that the causative relationship one is trying to prove (that using concepts of
complex adaptive systems will assist members of organisations to better understand
their organisation) is in fact proved (Yin, 1989).
External validity and reliability issues were addressed so that my research
findings could be generalised to more global situations. External validity relates to
whether the causal relationships measured in the research can be generalised to and
across different times, outside persons, settings and times (Zikmund, 2000).
Although action research is almost impossible to replicate due to the researcher being
part of the research process, if strict procedural methods are adhered to the research
should be well judged. In an attempt to minimise the possibility of external validity
and reliability issues, a robust research design was applied and a formal post-data
collection analysis method was used. It must be noted, however, that the number of
people involved in the focus groups does not constitute a statistically significant
population in terms of the total Air Force population.
Action research methodology has the dual aims of action and research; action
to bring about change is something, and research to increase understanding on the part
of the researcher or the client, or both (Dick, 1993). The process of action research, at
its simplest level, is cyclical or spiral, and includes some planning before taking
action, and critiquing or reviewing the outcome of the action. This process is repeated
a number of cycles. Both the data collected and the process that is used to do so are
part of the spiral or cyclical process. The research becomes a process of iteration
where you gradually refine your understanding of the situation you are studying
(Dick, 1993). The action research process has been described as a systematic way of
identifying and solving problems through a spiral of action research cycles, each
consisting of a plan, action, observation and critical reflection (Zuber-Skerritt, 1991).
One of the key principles of action research is to let the data decide. At each
step, the information collected so far is used to determine the next step (Dick, 1993).
The reflective aspect of action research is a particularly effective way for practitioners
to learn, especially where there is deliberate and conscious reflection and sceptical
challenging of interpretations (Dick, 1993). Action research thereby generates
practical theory and is generally undertaken by people who want to improve their
understanding of their practice in order to improve their dealings with others in social
situations (McNiff et al., 2000).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
69
_____________________________________________________________________
At all times during the action research process, it is important to try to work
with multiple information sources, preferably independently or partly independently.
There are ways in which the researcher can use the similarities and differences
between data sources to increase the accuracy of the information. This might be call
dialectic; it is similar to what is often called triangulation in research (Dick, 1993).
Using different Management Services teams for different cycles is my way of using
multiple information sources. Although they work within the one general setting, the
Air Force, they serve different clients in different States, on different work.
During the action research phase the researcher is expected to describe clearly
both the research and the procedure. The researcher will then carry out an analysis
and evaluation of the results of his actions, both content and process, in light of the
literature review. The reflection element of the action research process would see the
researcher analyse the reflections gathered during the project (Sankaran, 2001).
It is an important feature of this approach that my later focus groups differ
from earlier focus groups. This will provide the opportunity to be suspicious of my
emerging interpretation, and to refine my method and my focus group structure. The
purpose of action research is to learn from the experience, and apply that learning to
bringing about change.
The first step in action research is being deliberate and intentional about the
process you are commencing. You must apply the principle of intend, act and review.
Intend means to decide what outcomes you wish to achieve, and what actions will
give you those outcomes. The next step is to act in accordance with your
predetermined plan. The third step is to review what happened and decide whether or
not the intended outcomes were achieved. In either case you must decide whether
those outcomes are useful for your research. This is more fully explained later under
collection of data.
Action research has been identified as the most appropriate method of
developing managerial competencies needed in the future to adapt to rapid change
(Zuber-Skerritt, 1991). It is appropriate to use in situations where there is a high level
of uncertainty.
Action research, as a research methodology, lends itself to the study of
complex issues. For that reason, it is a relevant method to address whether a practical
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
70
_____________________________________________________________________
tool that uses the concepts of complex adaptive systems can be developed that allows
members of organisations to better understand their organisations. There is no doubt,
after reviewing Chapter 2, that complex adaptive systems are challenging to
understand, both from a practitioner’s point of view and from a researcher’s point of
view. The flexibility offered by action research is essential as the researcher will be
learning by doing for a large part of the research process. The detail of how the
research will be conducted and what is involved in applying it is covered in the
remainder of this chapter.
This section has shown that the research topic is justified in terms of its
importance at this time, particularly for Air Force, but also for other organisations.
Reviewing the research questions with respect to available research methodologies
allowed the possible range of methodologies to be reduced. While originally the
research methodology of embedded case studies was considered to the extent that a
pilot interview with a senior Air Force officer was conducted, problems were
identified with this approach which led the way to adopting action research as the
methodology and using the Management Services Teams as research subjects because
of their management consulting experience. The attributes of using action research,
particularly in the current situation, were discussed, before considering some of the
aspects of sound research. Finally, how action research is conducted was discussed.
Unit of analysis
This section will explain the research setting and the number of people
involved in the research. It will discuss the timeframe over which the research was
conducted and the strengths and weaknesses of using this unit of analysis.
The setting for my research is the Air Force, as explained in Chapter 1.
Within the Air Force, the Management Services Agency conducts internal
management consultancies for senior clients including commanders of the Air Force’s
Force Element Groups (FEGs). They assist commanders to lead change and improve
organisational performance using a variety of business improvement tools and
strategies. As such Management Services Agency personnel have an intimate
understanding of organisational issues across the Air Force. Agency personnel are
distributed around Australia in six, geographically dispersed, teams. This afforded the
opportunity to conduct six action research cycles, using focus groups, with six
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
71
_____________________________________________________________________
different, but similar, groups of people. Each focus group examined Doolittle’s six
concepts of complex adaptive systems and discussed their usefulness, or otherwise, in
understanding organisations. A total of 24 people were involved in the focus groups.
I conducted the initial focus group with the ACT team at the Management
Services Agency Headquarters in Canberra before commencing the series of another 5
cycles of action research with the other teams. The first focus group determined how
much my focus group design and content required change. A structured focus group
should be used with critical preparation and reflection before and after each cycle.
Therefore, to meet the needs of action research I wrote an account of the first focus
group so that I have the basis of my first action research cycle. I assumed that there
would be at least some amendments to the focus group design required after the first
focus group.
As Director of the Management Services Agency, I visit each of my teams at
the commencement of each calendar year which mean that I had easy access to team
members. The purpose of this visit is to meet the FEG commanders my consultants
assist and to listen to my people’s issues. The visit at the beginning of 2003 provided
an ideal opportunity to conduct the six focus groups. The order of conducting the
focus groups was purely a function of the visit schedule except for the first cycle,
which was conducted with the ACT team. This focus group was conducted first so
that any major failures in content or process would be uncovered and addressed.
There was sufficient time between team visits to reflect on the process and content
and amend the focus group format. In total, six cycles were conducted, plus an initial
interview with a senior Air Force officer. By the end of the six cycles, there appeared
to be less new comment and suggestions such that it was considered unlikely whether
there would have been any benefit, in data terms, in conducting further cycles with
other people.
The focus group design consisted of a 1 to 2-hour intervention focus group
based on complex adaptive systems to determine whether the concepts of complex
adaptive systems assists with understanding organisations. For ease of
communication, the term complexity theory was used interchangeably with the term
complex adaptive systems.
The focus group consisted of four sessions:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
72
_____________________________________________________________________
1.
an introduction/explanation of the workshop and its parts,
2.
a presentation on the concepts of complex adaptive systems (from Doolittle)
through the use of a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation,
3.
a focus group session to determine participant’s views of the usefulness of the
concepts of complex adaptive systems in understanding organisations, and
4.
a feedback session on the first two sessions in terms of process and content
and possible improvements for the next focus group.
One of the strengths of using Management Services Agency consultants is that
all people involved are highly trained and very experienced management consultants,
trained facilitators and enthusiastic practitioners. While this may be considered a
strength in terms of each participant’s likelihood of understanding the challenging
aspects of complex adaptive systems, in a general sense it may be that people with
less management experience find aspects of complex adaptive systems more
challenging. Having said that, the feedback provided by this unit of analysis should
be useful in tailoring an application for a wider audience.
During the focus group I stated that I would not be trying to prove whether the
concepts of complex adaptive systems are right or wrong, or the correct number, but
rather to identify the best way to apply them to organisational settings in the Air
Force. Furthermore, I stated that I was not going to apply or test complex adaptive
systems. While these may be seen as limitations to the utility of my research, given
the timeframe for conducting the research and the nature of the research questions,
they provided an ample background for the focus group participants.
In the closing part of the focus group, which was designed to facilitate content
and process feedback, the fundamental content question was; ‘Which of Doolittle’s
concepts of complex adaptive systems did you find the most useful in terms of
understanding organisations?’ It was important to get complex adaptive systems
content from the focus group section of the intervention so that it could be used in
model development and for the next cycle. My intention was to collect participants’
views on butcher’s paper. In terms of focus group process the final session sought
participants’ views on possible changes to the focus group process for the next focus
group cycle.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
73
_____________________________________________________________________
The initial interview with a senior Air Force officer, plus the six focus groups
was considered to be sufficient to provide the data to support or refute the research
questions.
In conclusion, this section on unit of analysis has described the research
setting and the cycles and people involved in the data collection process. The timing
of data collection was also discussed, as was the number of focus groups conducted.
The format of the focus group was explained, and the strengths and limitations of
using this unit of analysis were discussed.
Design of focus group
This section explains what a focus group is and the design of the focus group
used in this research. It will describe the data collection process of the initial scoping
interview with a senior Air Force officer and the focus groups and demonstrate how
the focus group was constructed such that the research questions could be addressed.
A focus group interview has been described as an unstructured, free-flowing
interview with a small group of people, where open-ended questions are used to
trigger discussion (Dick, 1998b; Zikmund, 2000). The advantage of using a focus
group format is that the format is flexible and encourages discussion. The group
consists of a facilitator and as many as ten participants who generally discuss a single
topic. The topic is introduced by the facilitator who then encourages the group
members to discuss the subject among themselves. The focus group process allows
people to discuss their feelings about the subject matter and to express the depth of
their convictions in their own words.
An advantage of using the focus group data collection method is that focus
groups are relatively brief, easy to execute, quickly analysed and inexpensive.
Although focus groups cannot take the place of quantitative studies, the responses that
participants offer are unlikely to emerge in a survey. There is likely to be a degree of
synergism in focus groups with a wider range of information, insights, and ideas
presented that would be found in cumulated individual responses. Further, the
dynamic created by interaction between participants can cause ideas to drop out of the
blue. These issues can then be developed further creating a bandwagon effect and in a
spontaneous manner. Participants tend to be more highly stimulated in a focus group
environment leading to better and more responses. Participants can often take
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
74
_____________________________________________________________________
comfort from agreement with the views of others, however do not need to contribute
if they do not hold a view on a particular subject. The focus group process is efficient
as one facilitator can interview many respondents at the one time. Furthermore,
observers can be invited to attend to offer a form of scrutiny (Zikmund, 2000).
The decision to use focus groups with Management Services Agency
personnel was based on the review of a pilot interview conducted with a senior Air
Force officer. At that time the methodology considered was embedded case studies.
The interview structure included a preamble to explain what the interview was about
and inform the participant of confidentiality, a series of questions related to the
concepts of complex adaptive systems, and then a closure section, which sought
feedback on the interview process and content. The interview was taped with the
participant’s permission. A copy of the interview protocol is at Appendix A. During
the review of the interview tape by my supervisor and myself, the decision was
reached to move to an action research methodology using focus groups within the
Management Services Agency. This decision was described previously under
selection and justification of action research.
The decision to use a focus group as the primary data collection process was
based on the reasons stated above, but also due to the educative aspect of what I
intended to cover with Management Services Agency personnel. Individuals within
an organisation, and their combined learning, create organisational-level knowledge.
When this knowledge is shared in a dialectical, reflexive manner through mutual
inquiry and reflection, such as a focus group, learning can be a self-organised
emergent process. This type of learning Schon described as ‘generative’ because
cognitive understanding is generated through one’s active participation in a project,
group, or system (Bergmann Lichtenstein, 2000a). Schon suggested a new way of
theorising which integrated theory and practice, a form of theory which is embodied
in real lives and shows the process of reflecting on reflection-in-action, and which
may be shared with others who are also studying their own practice (McNiff et al.,
2000). The preparation for conducting the focus groups involved designing the
questions to be used in each phase of the activity. Each focus group will generally
have an introduction, a series of questions to tap contextual information, questions to
tap the key information required, and probe questions for follow-up or to elicit more
specific information (Dick, 1998b). The questions I ask in the focus group were
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
75
_____________________________________________________________________
linked to the research questions, through the six concepts of complex adaptive
systems. In any qualitative research it is important to demonstrate that the questions
that are asked test the research questions, such that a case can be made (Yin, 1989).
The focus group workshop tool and focus group workshop slides can be seen at
Appendices B and C.
During the introduction phase participants were told what the purpose of the
focus group is and what will be done with any information which emerges from it.
There were two views surrounding whether or not to inform participants about the
questions that were to be posed prior to the focus group. On the one hand they would
have had time to think about the issues, but on the other hand they may have come
along to the focus group with their minds made up. Based on feedback from earlier
cycles, I decided to inform later focus group participants by e-mail of the general area
of discussion for the focus group, prior to the event.
The focus group consisted of four phases: introduction, contextual
information, key information and probe questions. These phases are consistent with
action research focus group research methods (Dick, 1998b). The introduction
consists of telling the participants of what your role is and providing a brief overview
of the session and its purpose. In my situation the participants were told that I was the
subject of the research; notwithstanding their contribution to the research process.
The purpose of the focus group was explained as were my intentions and what would
happen with the results of the focus group. A brief overview of the focus group
process was provided and participants were encouraged to ask questions at any time.
An explanation of what would be done with the information collected how it will be
analysed and what it will be used for was also provided. Participants were told that
they would not be identified by name and only by team. All participants were
encouraged to voice their views and partake in the discussion that followed.
Participants of each focus group were asked to agree on the major themes and
opinions that emerged. In this way, the information is refined during the different
phases, and the participants help in interpreting the information (Dick, 1998b).
The contextual information phase consisted of posing the key concepts of
complex adaptive systems to elicit the information that I thought I wanted or needed.
In most cases some explanation of terms used was offered. Participants were
reassured that it was acceptable to have alternative views about the material presented
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
76
_____________________________________________________________________
from either other members of the group or from myself. They were also encouraged
to present a range of views and opinions that would be recorded on butchers paper.
Participants were provided with time to think about the concepts and encouraged to
take notes as an aid to memory. Indeed, in later cycles, a handout was provided to
assist participants with this phase. During the open discussion the main points were
noted on butchers paper so that participants could see what was being written. They
were encouraged to correct me if I interpreted what they were saying inaccurately and
also to suggest amendments or additions. They were also invited to help me interpret
the information by discussing what it means to them.
During the key information phase, results from previous cycles can be fed in
to the focus group. Probing questions are asked throughout to elicit and encourage
more information to come out. The questions near the end of the focus group were
directly related to the research questions. Participants were asked if any elements
were missed, which elements they found most useful for organisational
understanding, whether they would be willing to use the concepts in their work with
organisations, and whether there was a better way to conduct the focus group.
Finally, participants were thanked for their participation and contribution to the
research. They were also told that the results of the research would be made available
to them once it was finalised.
This section has described what a focus group is and how it can be used to
collect data. It discussed how the decision was reached to use the focus group method
within an action research methodology. The structure of the focus group was then
explained, as was the linkage of the questions asked within the focus group to the
research questions.
Collection of data
This section will cover in more detail how the data were collected during the
scoping interview with a senior Air Force officer and during focus groups. The data
collection process, in terms of process, will also be covered. The results of the data
collection will be provided in Chapter 4. This section will demonstrate that correct
action research data collection methods have been followed (Perry, 1998).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
77
_____________________________________________________________________
The scoping interview conducted with the senior Air Force officer took place
on 20 November 2002. The data, in the form of focus groups was collected in the
following cycles on the dates specified:
Cycle 1
29 January 2003
Canberra (A.C.T.)
Cycle 2
5 February 2003
Amberley (Qld.)
Cycle 3
7 February 2003
Edinburgh (S.A.)
Cycle 4
12 February 2003
Melbourne (Vic.)
Cycle 5
18 February 2003
Williamtown (N.S.W.)
Cycle 6
26 February 2003
Richmond (N.S.W.)
A possible limitation of the collection of data being undertaken over a onemonth period may be that there was insufficient time to reflect on content and process
between the cycles such that greater personal learning could have been achieved. The
shortest timeframe between two focus groups was only two days. It should be noted,
however, that in the Results section of this report, significant learning did occur
between these two cycles.
Although each focus group only included a small number of people, 3 in the
case of the Victorian focus group, every member of each focus group was asked to
contribute their opinion, whether positive or negative. Every member of each focus
group contributed to the content of that focus group. The content of each focus group
was trapped on butchers paper by the facilitator so that focus groups participants
could see what was being written. Clarification questions were asked to ensure what
was written conveyed the views of the group. The butchers paper comments were
later input into a Word document on a laptop computer. The butchers paper
comments appear at Appendix D.
The use of brief cycles (Dick, 1993), however, added rigour to the research
process, as did using six different teams that would likely have different views on
both the content of the focus groups but also on the process of the focus groups.
Interpretations were made as part of the data collection process and assumptions were
sceptically and rigorously tested throughout the data collection phase. Alternative
views were actively encouraged throughout the process.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
78
_____________________________________________________________________
A process of critical reflection was used to learn through the action research
process. This is a spiral process which alternates between action and critical
reflection in which we learn both by acting more intentionally and being critically
reflective after the event (Dick & Dalmau, 1999). In this process each spiral is
regarded as having three components:
Intent
Act
Review
Questions are built around each component and specify our assumptions about
the important features of the situation, the desirable outcomes, and the actions to
achieve those outcomes as well as the reasons for forming those assumptions. Two
sets of questions are used; one set to enhance intentions, and another set to enhance
the review, or reflection process. The questions to enhance intention are:
What do you think are the salient features of this situation?
Why do you think those are the salient features?
Given that situation, what do I think are the desirable outcomes?
Why do I think those are the desirable outcomes?
What actions do I think will achieve those outcomes in that situation?
Why do I think those actions will achieve those outcomes in that situation?
(Dick et al., 1999)
The standard set of questions used to enhance reflection, and based on
revisiting the third and fourth questions from above, are:
Were the outcomes achieved?
If so, now that I’ve got them, do I still want them?
Why/why not?
If you don’t want the outcomes that you achieved, then you progress to the
following questions:
Was I mistaken about the situation?
If so, in what respect?
What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
Was I mistaken about the desirable outcomes?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
79
_____________________________________________________________________
If so, in what respect?
What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
Was I mistaken about the desirable actions?
If so, in what respect?
What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
Did I produce the actions?
If not, why not?
What have I learned from that in term of the situation, about the desirable
outcomes, about the desirable actions, about systems, about people, about myself etc.?
(Dick et al., 1999) These questions were worked through before and after each focus
group cycle. The answers were transferred into word documents and appear at
Appendix E.
In conclusion, this section has described how and when the collection the data
occurred. It discussed how data was capture and transcribed to form the appendices to
this report. The process for capturing content data was described before moving on to
how critical reflection was carried out and how this data was collected.
Analysis of data
The data from the action research process comprises two types: content data,
and process data. This section discusses the strategy of how the content data and the
critical reflection process data were presented and analysed, revealing the growing
development of the tool over the pilot study and six action research cycles.
Data from the pilot study, although not sourced through an action research
method, has been distilled to provide as much of guide as possible for the
development of the first action research cycle. Data from the pilot study and six
action research cycles will be presented in chronological order to show the
development of the focus group workshop tool over six cycles. Analysis of the pilot
study and each cycle will commence with my starting assumptions, move on to the
major findings of the cycle, and finally discuss what aspects of the tool were changed
as a result of that cycle. A summary table will be provided at the commencement of
each section to assist in demonstrating the development of the tool.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
80
_____________________________________________________________________
Content data from the focus group workshops was reduced from butchers
paper to a Microsoft Word document and is included at Appendix D. The
examination of content data will lead to a greater understanding of the overlapping
concepts of complex adaptive systems as they relate to being used as a metaphor to
assist organisational understanding. By drawing on the significant expertise of
internal management consultants a more comprehensive understanding of the practical
application of the concepts will result.
Intention and reflection comments are made prior to and after each cycle. The
role of these intention and reflection comments is to provide structure for the personal
learning that takes place through the cycles. The comments require the researcher to
consider process and content issues such that both can be refined and developed over
the cycles that are conducted. A consolidated list of my intention and reflection
comments is available at Appendix E.
By virtue of the fact that I was the subject of the research, the intention and
reflection comments made between cycles are personal in nature, and it is doubtful
whether another researcher with similar background to myself would have the same
reflections. This is a shortcoming of action research that can be partially offset by the
measures identified earlier in the chapter. The focus group workshop tool has been
included at Appendices B, C and H in case other researchers wish to further develop
it.
This section has indicated how both content and process data will be collected
and presented in a chronological order to demonstrate the development of the focus
group workshop tool over a pilot study and six action research cycles.
Ethical considerations
This section deals with the ethical considerations associated with this research.
It covers issues such as the voluntary participation of subjects, confidentiality, and
approval for the research. It will also discuss the limitation of personal bias in the
data collection and interpretation. It will demonstrate that, where possible, the
negative effects of any limitations have been reduced as much as possible.
In terms of ethical issues associated with the process of action research there is
a division between those who regard action research as instrumental (a way of
manipulating or co-opting people to do the things that other people want them to do)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
81
_____________________________________________________________________
and those who regard action research as educative (a way of enabling people to
transcend the false ideas they have about themselves which cause their lives to be
frustrating and unhappy) (Zuber-Skerritt, 1991). Those in the first school insist that
action research must be voluntary to be authentic. In my case the power relationship
between my consultants and myself could have affected the research, notwithstanding
that every step was taken to ensure it did not. This power relationship is often
encountered in action research conducted within structured organisations and it is
always important to attempt to negate its effect.
In conducting the research within the MSA, I had to be mindful of respect for
my people, beneficence, and justice. All participants in both the interview and focus
groups gave informed consent before partaking in the activities. There were two
aspects to ensuring informed consent. Firstly, they were notified of my intention to
conduct a focus group, what the focus group was about, the duration of the focus
group, and their choice to participate or not to participate.
The second aspect of gaining informed consent was at the commencement of
the focus group workshop itself. As part of the introduction to the focus group, the
above information was repeated (refer Appendix B). Aspects of participation covered
at both times included:
Purpose of the research
Methods to be used
Demands on participant’s time
Risks of involvement, and
Venue for the focus group.
Participants were informed that they were free to withdraw from the research
at any time with no questions asked.
Participants were told that individuals and their responses would not be
identified in the research with the only identifier being the team that they were a
member of.
It must be stated that I am in a more senior position than the participants in the
focus groups. Having said that, and being cognisant of the effect this may have had,
the relationship that I have with my staff is such that I doubt whether they would have
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
82
_____________________________________________________________________
felt coerced to participate in my focus group, although I have not been able to
substantiate this. Indeed, most were aware that I was undertaking a DBA, had some
idea about my topic of research, and were interested in the research methodology that
I was using. For this reason, there was more information provided on these topics
during the focus groups. Within each group, there were rank differences between the
participants but all participants responded as equals in terms of management
consulting experience. All MSA teams are sufficiently homogeneous in terms of the
types of work they perform to be treated the same for research purposes.
My research and the method of carrying it out, as well as the ethical issues
involved were discussed with my superior within the Air Force. They were satisfied
that my research method and the involvement of my staff was ethical and appropriate,
and gave approval for me to proceed with the research.
At the time of the data collection the researcher was described as a white,
Australian, early forties, middle class, social drinking, non-smoking, married male.
Whether any of these attributes have impacted on my critical reflections of the focus
groups is questionable. The data collection process, however, was designed to
provide as consistent as possible data.
It could be argued that since I conducted all the focus groups and wrote up all
the critical reflection notes that I could influence the study either consciously or
unconsciously. In an effort to address this possible shortcoming, I asked a participant
from the first focus group to sit-in during the sixth focus group cycle. I requested that
he take notes as a framework through which to provide feedback. The questions and
his responses are at Appendix F. It should be noted that this person also worked for
me. In summary, he noted that the sixth focus group was different from the first focus
group. During the background introduction more information was provided and
participants got a ‘better understanding of how, who, what etc.’. He felt there was a
better and more thorough explanation of the complex adaptive systems. There
appeared to be less structure in the discussion and a greater focus on use of the theory
in the work environment than there had been during the first cycle. There appeared to
be more interaction between the participants in the focus group.
The participant from the first focus group was asked specifically if he thought
that the participants in the sixth focus group were “led” by myself as the facilitator.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
83
_____________________________________________________________________
He believed that I did not lead the group and that participants were allowed to speak
as desired and the discussion appeared to be led by participants. He suggested that I
may need to use more examples to ‘kick start’ discussion. He believed that the
participants in focus group six had a better chance of understanding complex adaptive
systems and those in the first group, of which he had participated. This, he felt, was
due to greater opportunity to discuss ideas and concepts more as a group, rather than
responding as individuals.
Although it was the last planned cycle, the participant from the first group was
asked to make suggestions for improvement should a seventh cycle be conducted.
The suggestions here were to provide feedback on what current theory says, and
perhaps to disclose what other teams had said on the matters raised. His final
comment related to the time the focus group took. He believed that the sixth focus
group took significantly less time than the first due to there being less structure in the
process, for example, permitting group discussion rather than seeking individual
responses.
This section has addressed the ethical issues associated with conducting action
research. It has also discussed the issue of personal bias in data collection and
interpretation and the steps taken to reduce this possibility.
Conclusion
This chapter has explained the research methodology selected for this
research. It restated the two research questions before embarking on providing
justification for selecting action research as the research methodology. The research
was confirmed as timely and important in the current environment. The nature of the
research questions directed the selection of a critical theory and realism methodology
as an appropriate basis for addressing the research questions. The exploratory
research that was conducted was discussed in terms of its role in deciding upon action
research and the use of focus groups for data collection in the Air Force.
Action research as a research methodology was then discussed, highlighting its
benefits and some of the criticisms that have been levelled against it. Discussion was
provided on how to minimise the criticisms of action research as a research approach.
A description was offered as to how action research is conducted, and how, in my
situation, the action research methodology is linked to my research questions. The
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
84
_____________________________________________________________________
unit of analysis for my research was then discussed in terms of research setting, data
collection timing, and the strengths and limitations of using this unit of analysis.
The design of a focus group was then discussed, firstly by explaining what a
focus group is and the advantages of using focus groups as a data collection process,
and then by offering an explanation of why I decided to use focus groups for my
primary data collection activity. The structure and content of my focus group was
then described showing consistency with accepted practice with this form of data
collection. The chapter then moved on to discuss the action collection of data process
to provide the reader with a greater level of detail on how and when the data was
collected. The analysis process for the data was then discussed identifying criteria for
reducing, displaying and verifying. This was done for both content data and for
process data.
Finally, ethical considerations and limitations were discussed and methods to
minimise the limitations were offered.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
85
_____________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS
Introduction
Chapter 3 fully explained the research methodology to be applied in this
research. Chapter 4 now presents the findings of that research. In research where
action research is the chosen methodology, Chapter 4 becomes a categorisation of
data in the form of words (Perry, 1998). The chapter is divided into eleven sections
that cover an introduction, pilot study findings, findings for cycles 1 to 6, findings for
research question one, findings for research question two and a conclusion. The
structure of Chapter 4 is illustrated below at Figure 4.
Introduction
Findings – action
research cycle 6
Findings research question
1
Pilot study
findings
Findings – action
research cycle 5
Findings research question
2
Findings – action
research cycle 1
Findings – action
research cycle 2
Findings – action
research cycle 4
Findings – action
research cycle 3
Conclusion
Figure 4 – Diagrammatical Structure of Chapter 4
Research outcomes for studies using action research can be grouped in a
number of different ways such as: management findings, research findings, and
personal outcomes. Each type of outcome could be further divided into ‘direct’,
‘indirect’, and ‘surprise’ outcomes (Sankaran, 2001). In this instance, the findings
will be presented chronologically, commencing with the findings of a pilot study and
the changes made in response to those findings. The findings for the next six action
research cycles will then be described in turn. Prior to discussion of the pilot study
and each cycle, a table that summarises my starting assumptions, major findings and
changes as a result of the cycle is provided. These tables demonstrate the
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
86
_____________________________________________________________________
development, over the six cycles, of the tool and its effectiveness for use by Air Force
organisational management consultants in understanding organisations.
In discussing the six cycles and quoting excerpts directly from the workshop
notes (in italics) I demonstrate that the focus group workshop participants understood
the concepts of complex adaptive systems sufficiently well such that they could, and
possibly will, use them in their work as organisational management consultants in the
Air Force. The relevance of my findings for Research question 1 and then Research
question 2 will be stated. A conclusion will follow.
Pilot Study Findings
Starting
assumptions
The Senior Officer will relate to my interpretation of the concepts
of complex adaptive systems in terms of his extensive experience
in the Air Force and confirm the utility of the concepts for thinking
about decision-making.
Major Findings
Process – Merely inferring the concepts of complex adaptive
systems will be flawed, methodologically. The interviewee would
have appreciated more time to think of examples.
Content – Interview participant sensitivity to complex adaptive
systems terminology.
What changed
The research methodology changed from embedded case studies to
action research. The target group changed from Air Force senior
officers to internal management consulting teams.
Table 2 – Pilot study findings
Starting assumptions. My starting assumptions for the pilot study were that
the senior officer would relate to my interpretation of the concepts of complex
adaptive systems and would be able to relate organisational behaviour, in particular
decision-making, to the concepts. I also assumed that the senior officer would be
prepared to explore the use of these concepts in future decision-making forums. As
action research was not being used at that stage, process findings were not formally
collected. Content findings were deduced from the tape recording, made with
permission, of the interview.
Major findings. The interview was conducted with a senior Air Force officer
in Canberra on 20 November 2002. A copy of the interview protocol is at Appendix
A. One unexpected finding from the data collection phase was the sensitivity of the
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
87
_____________________________________________________________________
respondent to the original terminology used in the interview questions. For example,
it soon became evident that it was unwise to use terms such as ‘equilibrium’ and
‘stable’ when discussing the Air Force organisation. The opposite of stable is
‘unstable’ and the opposite of equilibrium is ‘disequilibrium’ and this was considered
by the senior Air Force officer as an undesirable state for the organisation to be in,
without the benefit of understanding how ‘unstable’ or ‘disequilibrium’ are defined in
terms of complex adaptive systems. Another term that was unwise to use was
‘spectacular’ in terms of effects of decisions. The Air Force is a conservative
organisation led by senior people with largely conservative ideals. What could be
considered emotive terminology can be viewed with some suspicion.
On being interviewed about aspects of complex adaptive systems and the Air
Force, the senior officer stated that numerous evolutionary changes had been imposed
on the Air Force externally and some of the effects of these changes had been
completely underestimated by people within the organisation; for example the impact
and extent of the Defence Reform Program. The senior officer acknowledged that the
models and schemas used within Air Force had changed over time, and the Air Force
of today is quite different from the Air Force of the 1970’s; Air Force leaders of today
must convince subordinates to follow them rather than coerce them. Commanders
must motivate people within organisations through their vision, as the authoritarian
style of leadership no longer works. He believed that the Air Force, and particularly
the Senior Leadership Team, now works more as a team than it used to in the past
however decisions, such as changes to initial training processes, still take a long time
to bear fruit due to the time lag between a person’s recruitment into the Air Force and
reaching a more influential level within the organisation. Further, new ideas and
suggestions to improve the Air Force, are now examined more closely than they were
in the past. Lastly, the relationship across the Air Force rank structure has become
less formal over time. This is positive and encourages greater agent interaction than
was the case previously.
Notwithstanding the above; Air Force committees sometimes still rush
decisions and there remains a requirement to have better facts available on which to
base quality decisions. Some trivial decisions can still filter to the top and the
demographic make-up of the senior committees is still too concentrated. It was
acknowledged that more diversity is needed in the views presented and in the
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
88
_____________________________________________________________________
background and experience of decision makers. He also made the point that the
personality of the CAF is an important factor.
The senior officer noted that a couple of the overlapping concepts appeared
quite similar (Concept 3 to Concept 2). He also stated that it would have been useful
to have some sample questions ahead of the interview to allow more time to think of
relevant and good examples.
The senior officer made an interesting point in terms of planning in total and
for the longer term: he mentioned that despite the fact that the plan was useless after
the first shot was fired, the fact that planners had gone through a disciplined planning
process enabled them to better deal with the situation in toto, and contingencies, as
they arose. For example, the planners had thought about the ‘nature’ of the problem –
had given the problem some ‘headspace’, such that future decisions were better
informed. Therefore planning should not be neglected but rather kept in perspective
for the value it adds in thinking ‘around’ the problem.
The senior officer was able to understand the nature of the concepts and
provided relevant examples of situations where the concepts could be applied, for
example in increasing the diversity of views in a decision-making process. For this
reason, although ultimately only a pilot study, the concepts could be seen as useful in
understanding organisational behaviour. Although the research methodology changed
after the pilot study, these findings, based on Doolittle’s six overlapping concepts of
complex adaptive systems, provided some useful background information prior to the
development of the action research focus group workshop tool.
What Changed. The rationale for not proceeding with the methodology of
embedded case studies has been described in Chapter 3 – Methodology. Rather than
conducting interviews with senior Air Force personnel regarding complex adaptive
systems and using them as embedded case studies, a focus group workshop was
designed for use with six Air Force internal management consulting teams using an
action research methodology. It was felt that considering Air Force examples of
where the concepts may have been evident could perhaps reduce sensitivity to some
of the complex adaptive systems terminology in the focus group workshops.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
89
_____________________________________________________________________
Findings – action research cycle 1
Starting
assumptions
The focus group workshop tool will adequately inform participants
about Complex adaptive systems. Participants will understand the
concepts to the extent that they can offer meaningful feedback on
the concepts and the tool.
Major Findings
Process –More time was needed for providing explanations,
examples and definitions.
Content – The concepts are not easy to understand. Participants
could identify applications for use of the concepts.
What changed
Process – More summaries were provided. The workshop was less
structured in terms of eliciting responses, and the discussion was
less lead. More explanation and justification for the research was
provided.
Content – Greater explanation of terminology and of what a
complex system is. Greater explanation of concepts in terms of
planning activities.
Table 3 – action research cycle 1 findings
Starting assumptions. Based on the intent and reflection questions proposed
by Dick et al. 1999 and listed in Chapter 3, I recorded observations prior to
conducting the Cycle 1 focus group workshop. A consolidated list of all intention and
reflection questions and responses for all six cycles is at Appendix E. As this was to
be my first experience of conducting the focus group workshop, I was not particularly
confident in either the content or the process or how participants would relate to the
material. While I think that the Canberra team will be supportive of what I am
attempting to achieve they will probably have many suggestions on how to make the
workshop better. I was also hoping that their suggestions would align with what I was
attempting to achieve and not diverge from my thinking to a large extent. I was also
conscious of the fact that, as this was my first cycle, I would be experiencing a high
degree of nervousness in terms of conducting the focus group workshop and that this
may have an impact on participant behaviour. All of these factors could impact on the
outcome of the first cycle.
The desirable outcomes that I hoped for included a generally positive
acceptance with some positive suggestions on how I can improve the model and the
workshop. I thought that these would be desirable outcomes as it would be
encouraging if other people (organisational consultants) thought that complex
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
90
_____________________________________________________________________
adaptive systems provided a useful metaphor for understanding organisational
behaviour in the Air Force. To achieve this outcome I thought it important to
demonstrate a personal enthusiasm for the model and to be able to provide a couple of
examples of how the concepts may be seen to have been useful in organisational
settings. I believed that, due to the management consulting experience levels of the
focus group participants and their propensity for lateral thinking they would seriously
entertain thoughts of attempting new ways of looking at organisational behaviour.
The pilot study had provided me with some Air Force examples of where the
senior Air Force officer had seen the relevance of the concepts. Notwithstanding his
sensitivity to complex adaptive systems terminology, I felt that if relevant examples
could be provided, focus group workshop participants would have a greater chance of
understanding the Concepts and perhaps show less sensitivity to the concept’s
terminology.
The pilot study had also provided me with some ideas about how complex
adaptive systems and their relevance to organisational behaviour in terms of the value
of planning, the importance of a diversity of views in decision-making, understanding
the impact of events in the external environment, how cause and effect may not be
directly related, and finally, some of the similarities between the concepts.
Major findings. Action research Cycle 1 occurred in Canberra on 29 January
2003. After the focus group workshop, I revisited the pre-focus group questions and
asked myself the remainder of the reflection questions suggested by Dick et al. 1999.
I believed that the expected outcomes of the first focus group workshop were
generally achieved. I received feedback from the participants that the concepts
proposed by Doolittle were useful and that the way they were presented, and the
process of the focus group workshop, could be improved for cycle 2. I got feedback
on the usefulness of the overlapping concepts and of the workshop itself such that it
can be improved for the next cycle. These outcomes and reflections were useful in
that they provided useful input for the next cycle and there was nothing raised that
was particularly contrary to my expectations of the focus group workshop.
What I learned from the situation of the first cycle was that, what I am
attempting to get across was not easy to comprehend and even with intelligent and
experienced management consultants the concepts take some time to sink in.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
91
_____________________________________________________________________
During the first cycle I drew a diagram on a whiteboard that indicated the nonequilibrium aspect of organisational behaviour in complex systems, ie oscillations that
can increase in amplitude until a point of bifurcation can be reached that then reduces
the amplitude to a manageable level before the another cycle commences. There was
no disconfirming evidence presented during Cycle 1.
The findings in terms of Doolittle’s concepts/attributes are now discussed. A
consolidated list of all findings for the content of the cycles is at Appendix D.
Attribute 1. ‘Equilibrium’ was considered by participants as a relative term:
what is equilibrium for some organisations is chaos for others and vice-versa. An
organisation’s equilibrium can be disturbed by events in the external environment if
the organisation is open to that environment. The extent of external focus in
organisations is important – the Air Force is considered by focus group workshop
participants to be quite internally focussed. People, as well as organisations, can get
left behind if they do not adapt to changes in their external environment. Progressive
organisations, it was proposed, will engage more with their external environment.
Strategic planning and change management programs in organisations are often about
examining what changes are required in response to changes in the organisation’s
operating environment. Planning methodologies take into consideration the external
environment. Organisations may also plan with a view to seeking equilibrium.
Planning and plans, however, are often portrayed or undertaken in a linear fashion.
Participants agreed, however, that the real world is non-linear.
Attribute 2. Some participants did not like the word ‘involves’. They felt that
this attribute appears to be more closely related to individual agent behaviour than
total organisational behaviour; more individual agent based rather than an
organisation. Experience, it was felt, can be a two-edged sword with more
experience providing a wider variety of possible solutions versus less experience
necessitating the examination of new and novel solutions. Individual and group
behaviours, as well as group size, were considered relevant in the application of
experience in the workplace. Adaptation to the environment is sometimes
compromised due to past experiences. If experiences are dated and the environment
has changed, maladaption (damping or buffering mechanisms) could occur. It was
noted that in the Air Force, due to the policy of internal promotion, those with more
experience hold the more senior positions. This could result in some reinventing of
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
92
_____________________________________________________________________
the wheel. Participants felt that there is a level of risk involved in relying solely on
experience to adapt to the environment. Being aware that decision making is based
on experience is important to acknowledge. Decision making in organisations is also
a cultural thing with some organisations capitalising on experience from diverse
backgrounds, while others shun diverse views.
Attribute 3. The challenge for many organisations is that models and schemas
can have a great deal of feeling and emotion attached to them – it can be emotionally
and physically difficult to change them. Participants felt that in the work that the
MSA conducts there is the opportunity for consultants to delight clients with
outcomes that are superior to what they are used to getting. They also felt, however,
that, organisational behaviour is a function of more than just internal models and
schemas. Participants felt that internal models and schemas are an individual thing as
well, and together shape organisational culture.
Attribute 4. Participants in the focus group workshop felt that, decentralising
decision making to local levels can create emergent behaviour at the local level.
They also pointed out that emergent behaviour, at the organisational level, might be
quite different from what is expected. Participants also felt that the size of the
organisation was important for this attribute, as the greater the number of people
involved, the less likely it may be to reach a decision. Further, they felt that the
aggregation process might drive people out of the organisation if the models and
schemas that develop offend them. Notwithstanding this, in organisational change,
critical mass is important to gain to make it happen.
Attribute 5. Participants felt that in the Air Force organisation people in a
leadership role can steer the organisation where they want it to go. Perhaps this could
be considered ‘manipulation’ rather than ‘active construction’. They felt that this is
perhaps easier in smaller organisations. There was a view that this attribute assumes
that organisations are in a state of constant change, which can be resisted, and that
nothing remains static. It was also acknowledged that, people will change at different
rates in different ways. Participants also stated that, schema construction is
influenced by training and experience.
Attribute 6. Participants commented that this attribute would be affected by
the amount of change required by the organisation to adapt to the external
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
93
_____________________________________________________________________
environment. Greater change would require greater agent interaction and use of
internal models and schemas. With regard to this attribute participants felt that the
ability to cross and see over organisational boundaries is an important factor. They
also posed the question of what may happen if there was no agent interaction; would
you still get changes to internal models and schemas? They also asked if there were
more variables at work apart from internal models and schemas and agent interaction.
Diversity of agent background was again raised in the discussion of this attribute, in
terms of how this may impact on the development of internal models and schemas.
These comments from focus group workshop participants demonstrated to me,
as the subject of the action research, that they were able to grasp the intent of each
attribute and could think of situations where they could apply the attribute in their
work in the Air Force. I learned a large amount about complex adaptive systems in
this cycle. I found that different people interpret the concepts and what they mean in
different, but not dis-similar, ways. I learned how the concepts could be applied in a
wider range of situations through the input from workshop participants. The different,
even opposing, views on the value of experience in organisations was interesting as
was the apparent ‘loss of control’ over emergent behaviour. Finally, I learned how
important the role of management consultants is in terms of the concepts and being in
a position to assist client organisations.
What Changed. There were many changes suggested for the focus group
workshop after the first cycle. The changes can broadly be categorised as providing
more time and providing more explanation. Improvements suggested by participants
included a better explanation of various terms including; equilibrium, non-linear,
entropy and agent. They also suggested explanation of how these related to
organisations. They suggested removing the term ‘overlapping’ when referring to the
concepts as it drew attention away from the concept and more to what aspects may be
overlapping. They suggested that I provide an explanation of what a complex system
is compared to a simple system.
Other suggested improvements were; developing a handout for participant use,
using more summary slides, and including a “so what?” slide to detail what value
participants would gain from the focus group workshop. They suggested that at slide
#5 ‘Benefit to you and the RAAF’ I add a bullet point that states, ‘what does this
mean for you?’ and to mention how they may be able to use the information from the
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
94
_____________________________________________________________________
focus group in their work with clients. This should be done in a non-patronising way!
They asked me to explain to the next group how I will feed back the results of my
research to focus group participants and who would have access to my research
findings, and to provide more detail on the action research methodology I was using
and explaining why it is relevant to MSA personnel. The participants suggested I
provide a further reading list for both complex adaptive systems and action research.
Presentation slides for each cycle are not included, however a copy of the final slides
is at Appendix C and notes to use the slides at Appendix D. The final cycle handout
is at Appendix H.
Other suggestions included explaining the concepts in terms of how they
related to facilitating planning activities with clients and adding, at slide #3, why my
research is of interest to the Air Force. They also sought more information on using
action research and its relevance to their work. Participants suggested that the word
‘involves’ is replaced with ‘is a result of’ on concept 2 (slide #15). They also felt that
I should lead the discussion less and also take pressure off individuals to contribute at
the end of each concept explanation. As suggested by Dick, (1998 b) I had asked
participants to offer their individual comments, in turn, after each concept was
introduced. They stated that I need to explain the relationships in ‘An organisation in
practice’ slide (#9). Finally, they sought more detail in talking about the “why you?”
slide (#4), for example that they were complex and difficult concepts that they may be
able to assist with due to their training and experience in the MSA.
Changes to tool. There were many changes made to the tool as a result of the
suggestions made above. These included mentioning the opportunity for breaks
during the focus group workshop at slide #2, replacing the term ‘overlapping
concepts’ with ‘attributes’, and adding comments of why my research is of interest to
the Air Force. The terms ‘concepts’ and ‘attributes’ will now be used
interchangeably. I also added in comments who had sponsored the research and who
would have access to the results (including feedback to participants).
A summary slide (#6) was added at end of the introduction that covered the
structure of the focus group workshop, area of research and methodology, what Air
Force and you may gain from doing it, and questions. A bullet point was added to
slide #5, ‘What does this mean for you?’ More explanation comments were added to
slide #8 ie ‘hierarchical structure where, supposedly one manager would only interact
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
95
_____________________________________________________________________
with their director etc.’ and slide #9 ‘where d and s are two people who interact with
others such that many combinations of what d and s have input to occur over the
organisation.’ A summary slide (#13) was added at end of the ‘What are complex
adaptive systems?’ section, and comments added including, ‘relatively new way of
thinking about organisations and their behaviour, difficult to fully grasp all at one
time, must look a the “crude whole”, and different to what we are used to.’ A note
was also included to ask for questions. A further summary slide added at end of
concepts section (#20) with comments that the ‘six attributes, similar, utility in
organisational setting’. Discussion was also sought at this time. Finally, in terms of
adding slides, slide #21 on Brodnick and Krafft’s eight postulates of complex adaptive
systems was added as a way of further informing participants of aspects of complex
adaptive systems.
In terms of the concepts, at concept 1, a comment was added that you, ‘cannot
understand an organisation merely by analysing various components. Things don’t
happen in consecutive steps or straight lines – much is happening all of the time.’
Also at this concept more explanation for ‘far from equilibrium’ was provided ie
‘stable organisations are in a state of entropy (dying) because they cannot adapt to
their changing external environments’ and explaining what the means in terms of
planning. At concept 2, I changed the word ‘involves’ to, ‘is a result of’. At concept
4, the term ‘agents’ was explained more fully as, ‘agents are parts of an organisation –
either people or sections, depending on what level you are discussing. They can be
just individuals within an organisation’.
Other comments were added throughout the presentation. They included
informing participants why their experience as professional management consultants
was necessary to attempt to understand complex and difficult concepts. Participants
would now be told what the benefits to them would be of their participation ie.
exposure to complex adaptive systems and action research, that they could use in their
work in understanding organisational behaviour. It was also mentioned that they
might have covered some aspects of complex adaptive systems during their MSA
training or in subsequent MBA studies regarding systems approaches to
organisational understanding. Notes were also added to indicate that complex
adaptive systems research was primarily out of North America at present, but that
more was now being done in Australia. A definition of a simple system was provided
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
96
_____________________________________________________________________
as an ‘input → process → output’ construct and complex systems are made up of
many parts that interact together to achieve more than the sum of the parts.
A handout was developed with attributes down left-hand column and space to
write on the right side (Appendix G). Further reading and complex adaptive systems
web site information was also provided. Lastly, I made a note to myself not to ask
each individual to comment in turn but rather just open the floor for discussion.
Findings – action research cycle 2
Starting
assumptions
Major Findings
What changed
The tool, and the way it is presented, is a good method for
informing participants about Complex adaptive systems. They will
be able to relate the concepts to their role as management
consultants. The changes from cycle 1 will be confirmed as
positive.
Process – I needed to be more careful about document and slide
version control as some of the slide terminology differed from the
handout.
Content – Consistencies in the interpretation of concepts started to
surface. Explaining agent interaction more and also what is new
about complex adaptive systems.
Process – I asked, ‘what does this mean in terms of understanding
organisations?’ Additional further readings were provided.
Content – Better explanations of what complex adaptive systems
are and that it is not particularly new. Also mention what the
alternatives to complex adaptive systems are.
Table 4 – action research cycle 2 findings
Starting assumptions. Action research Cycle 2 occurred in Amberley (Qld.)
on 5 February 2003. The salient feature of the second action research cycle was that I
am now more confident that the content and process will be an improvement on cycle
one after the changes I have made. I was interested to see what difference the
changes I made would have on the focus group workshop. I was interested to see how
some of the changes would affect the outcome of the focus group, particularly how
helpful the handout will be. This focus group would consist of a slightly smaller
number of participants than the first focus group. These were the biggest changes
from Cycle 1.
A positive outcome for Cycle 2 would be a generally positive acceptance of
the content with some suggestions on how I could improve the model and the
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
97
_____________________________________________________________________
workshop for the next cycle. The desirable outcome was a better, or improved, focus
group workshop to Cycle 1 and a general level of acceptance that the content is useful
for organisational understanding in the Air Force. This was a similar desirable
outcome to that expressed for Cycle 1. By ensuring that I apply the learnings from
the first cycle the outcome should be improved.
The participants for the second focus group workshop had similar training and
similar consulting experience to the participants in Cycle 1. I also understood that the
participants were looking forward to the focus group workshop and that some may
have investigated complex adaptive systems on the Internet in preparation for the
focus group workshop.
After the focus group workshop, I revisited the pre-focus group questions and
asked myself the remainder of the reflection questions suggested by Dick et al. 1999.
I believed that the expected outcomes were largely achieved. There was a generally
positive acceptance of the material and there were some suggestions on how I could
improve the focus group process and content. The group confirmed that some of the
changes from Cycle 1 were good ideas and that the focus group flowed well. This
group also appeared to be able to consider work situations where they could use the
content. I was happy to get the results that I did however there were fewer
suggestions for improvement than were offered in cycle 1. Suggestions that were
made were still useful in terms of both content and process. The suggestions made
about the process and the comments made on the content and the six overlapping
concepts of complex adaptive systems actually added to my understanding of complex
adaptive systems. I found that in this workshop I was more relaxed in facilitating the
focus group. I took more time in explaining the background to the focus group and in
explaining complex adaptive systems. I allowed more time for each concept to be
considered before asking for input and what participants thought of the concept. With
a more relaxed pace, participants appeared to have more time to think and consider
how they could apply the concept in an organisational setting. Suggestions for
improvement included:
1. Explaining the levels of agent interaction more,
2. For each concept ask if it is useful for better understanding the behaviour of
organisations, and
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
98
_____________________________________________________________________
3. Explaining what is new about complex adaptive systems.
The participants appeared to appreciate the handout notes, which were a
recommendation of the first focus group, and many used the available space on the
handout to take their own notes, particularly in relation to the definition of terms. I
found that some of the comments made by participants of Cycle 2 were similar to
some comments made by the participants in Cycle 1. While not surprising, this
indicated, perhaps, a start of some consistency in findings. I found myself
questioning whether these similarities were due to the Air Force organisational culture
or whether the same comments would arise, say, with a group of internal management
consultants from private industry.
As a minor point, I discovered the need for version control for the focus group
handout and the PowerPoint slide presentation. There were inconsistencies between
the terminology used in the slides and the terminology used in the handout in this
cycle.
The main findings of Cycle 2 were that I had grown more confident in the
process and the use of the content. Again, there was a generally positive acceptance
of the process and the content of the workshop. The group was able to provide more
work examples of the use of the concepts thereby increasing my knowledge of
complex adaptive systems and the concepts. Similar comments to those experienced
in Cycle 1 were evident revealing the start of some consistency in the findings. There
were fewer suggestions for improvement than had been generated by Cycle 1. There
was no disconfirming evidence presented during Cycle 2.
Major findings. Participants made the following points about the six
attributes.
Attribute 1. Expectations of an organisation’s capacity to adapt increase
where there is greater input from the external environment. Further, some
organisations may strive to be linear, closed, and in equilibrium! Organisations have
generally become more open through advances in technology such as phones, faxes,
computer connectivity and e-mail. This attribute is facilitated through technology ie.
E-mail.
Attribute 2. What about adaptation to anticipated changes? Participants were
interested in exploring whether there could be proactive adaptation; for example pre_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
99
_____________________________________________________________________
empting what may happen in the external environment and planning for it.
Organisations can ignore or misread the signs in the external environment.
Individuals can also misread the signs. Participants felt that, as consultants, they will
often consider the impact of change in an organisation before adaptation occurs. If an
organisation has no experience it may ignore the requirement to adapt, however the
opposite may also occur when extensive experience may inhibit adaptation activities.
Attribute 3. Strongly embedded models and schemas are hard to change.
Participants stated that models and schemas are hard to change, for example the Air
Force is attempting to move from being a rules-based organisation to being a valuesbased organisation. This implies that one of the first steps would be to identify
current models and schemas before any thought was given to what changes may be
required. Participants felt that you would need to change the experience, through
demonstrating regular behaviour, to change the model or schema. Leaders would
need to model new behaviours to change the dominant models and schemas.
Attribute 4. Participants felt that there can be groups or agents in
organisations that can tend to dominate. We probably understand this subconsciously
as management consultants ie who we need to speak to (influencers and powerbrokers
of a client organisation). Further, rules and regulations in organisations will impact
on particular behaviours and there will be predominant behaviours within particular
groups.
Attribute 5. Networks make things happen in organisations. Participants
stated that a system in an organisation will bypass bad bits or blockages and achieve
‘workarounds’ to make things happen. This may be an indication that some processes
have become redundant in an organisation. They also believed that the behaviour of
agents in the system will be motivated by many desires, some of them political.
Participants felt that, as consultants they had noticed that there is less human
interaction now within/between units in the Air Force and this has an impact on selforganising behaviour.
Attribute 6. There may be other catalysts ie regulatory requirements that
impact on internal models and schemas. One could argue that regulatory
requirements were some of the demands from the external environment that require
adaptation internally.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
100
_____________________________________________________________________
What Changed. I gave considerable thought to the question raised by
participants about proactive adaptation. My final view was that adaptation could be in
response to either events or expectations of events in the external environment. Even
expectations of events must be based on some cues from the external environment. In
response to participant questions about the value of linear systems in organisations, I
decided that linear representations constitute mainly graphical descriptions of what is
supposed to occur in any given situation. What actually happens may or will be
different from what was expected to happen. Formal linear systems allow people or
agents a baseline from which to discuss self-organising changes.
Participants also asked about the role leaders of organisations play in
organisations when viewed as complex adaptive systems. My view was that they
could ensure openness to the external environment and encourage agent interaction.
Participants also asked what the opposite or alternative to complex adaptive systems
is and also what is new about it. They also sought a more comprehensive explanation
of the level of agent interaction. They suggested that for each attribute I ask if it is
useful to them for better understanding the behaviour of organisations. They also
suggested that I change the wording on the handout to match the wording on the
slides.
Changes to tool. I made additions to my notes on the slide (#7) ‘What are
complex adaptive systems?’ to include that the alternative to complex adaptive
systems, for organisations is a range of management theories that are based on
Newtonian thinking ie. Analysis of the parts. I also noted that complex adaptive
systems are multidisciplinary ie Quantum physics, genetics, biology, evolution,
mathematics, computer sciences etc. and that complex adaptive systems are not
particularly new, but that it was different in that it requires a new way of thinking
about things. I added a question to all the concept slide and concepts summary slide
notes: ‘what does this mean in terms of understanding organisations?’. Finally, an
additional web site address (http://www.plexusinstitute.com/) was added to the
original reading list. The web site offers further understanding of aspects of complex
adaptive systems.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
101
_____________________________________________________________________
Findings – action research cycle 3
Starting
assumptions
People more experienced in organisational consulting will find the
concepts more useful. The focus group workshop participants
would appreciate the emphasis on application of the concepts to
organisations.
Major Findings
Process – The tool works quite will with a small group but it is
quite linear in nature.
Content – Some participants consider the material too academic
and participants absorb the material at different rates.
Organisational structures can enhance or inhibit aggregation
activity.
What changed
Process – the terminology on slides and handouts was further
refined.
Content – More specific questions were asked about the
applicability of complex adaptive systems to understanding
organisations.
Table 5 – action research cycle 3 findings
Starting assumptions. Action research Cycle 3 occurred in Edinburgh (S.A.)
on 7 February 2003. For this cycle I was far more confident that what I had to present
was of the standard that should elicit favourable responses. Although this will be a
focus group with the smallest number of participants yet (2 people), their input, as
two of the Agency’s most experienced consultants will be important. I thought that
my confidence in the material and process would assist in me communicating the
material in an effective manner. With such a small group there may be more or less
pressure on the participants to offer input, this could lead to rushed rather than
considered responses. The desirable outcome for this cycle would be a similar
outcome to previous cycles in that they would offer suggestions for improvement to
the content and the process of the focus group. They would also hopefully be able to
offer more suggestions as to how complex adaptive systems could be applied in
management consulting work. I was still confident that the content and process of the
focus groups could be further improved and that the expertise within this team will
provide a greater focus on the application of the concepts of complex adaptive
systems to understanding organisations. A higher again level of confidence on my
part should increase the chance for an optimal outcome. When I am more relaxed I
should be more attentive to how the participants are relaxing and what they are
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
102
_____________________________________________________________________
saying. Another factor, which may have been relevant, is that this focus group
workshop was conducted in the morning so that participants may have been more
fresh and enthusiastic. Previous workshops had been conducted in the afternoon.
Major findings. After the workshop I felt that the outcomes had been
achieved but not in the way I had expected. One participant got more from the focus
group than they had anticipated and found it very interesting and useful. They were
able to add some very good points for improving the next focus group and for using
complex adaptive systems in understanding organisations. The second participant,
although an experienced consultant, was more challenged by the ‘academic’ nature of
some of the material. Where he was able to add value was in the application of the
theory to organisational environments. He was also able to give some excellent
advice on how to make the presentation more ‘people friendly’, particularly in terms
of the handout. The focus group workshop reinforced the view that people will
continue to be challenged by the very level of the material in terms of its complexity.
It also confirmed that most people will need time to think about the concepts raised
and how they can be applied to increase organisational understanding. The
comments provided assisted in the further refinement of the process and of the
content.
What I learned this cycle was that the process that I employ works with a
small group quite well. It was more intimate and individual questions could be
answered more fully as more time was available. It did not appear to put undue
pressure on the fewer participants to contribute. Some good suggestions were made
on how to amend the handout notes to remove the linear nature of some of the
educative part of the focus group process. The group, based on its extensive
experience with consulting in organisations, was able to offer some good ideas about
how the concepts of complex adaptive systems could be used in understanding
organisations. Although I had resolved some version control problems with the slides
and handouts, there were still some refinements to be done in terms of the
terminology used.
The main findings for Cycle 3 were that different individuals would absorb the
material in different ways and at different rates. People also need time to think about
how to apply the concepts in organisational settings. I also found that it was possible
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
103
_____________________________________________________________________
to refine and improve the handout and the presentation to a higher degree based on the
feedback received.
I found that it is paradoxical to present material on complex adaptive systems,
which is inherently non-linear, in a linear manner. However, it is the method by
which we are used to learning so to use a non-linear teaching method (if there was
one!) would be challenging for participants on a number of levels.
Attribute 1. Organisations will often apply linear methods and processes to
make sense of the complexity of the work environment. Commercial organisations
now need to be more adaptive as change in the environment is now more rapid;
particularly in service industries. Organisations are now more open than they ever
used to be, especially commercial organisations.
Attribute 2. Organisations can be forced to make changes in response to
changes in the external environment whether they have previous experience with
these types of changes or not.
Attribute 3. Participants in this focus group workshop felt that the Air Force
was very keen to ask members of the APS and contractors to comply with Air Force
models and schemas, rather than considering some of the value that might come from
examining others’ models and schemas. As one participant stated, we are very slowly
adapting to some of their ways of thinking.
Attribute 4. Participants in this group felt that the Air Force needs to do more
to encourage the aggregation aspect of this attribute. They felt that personnel still
work in too many stovepipes and do not get the opportunity to interact with a
sufficiently wide range of other people in the Air Force. They also noted, however,
that the Air Force is, currently targeting specific groups to change the emergent
schemas and models ie the SLT through the ALP, Recruits and Officer Trainees.
Attribute 5. We must accept that organisations will continue to change over
time. We can’t expect things to remain the same over time. People in organisations
will often take comfort from predictability and routine, and organisational and
personal change will create levels of stress. For a relatively traditional organisation
such as the Air Force, introducing new things without having a link to the past is
fraught with danger.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
104
_____________________________________________________________________
Attribute 6. Participants made the comment that, in Air Force, new agents will
cause many of these changes ie. executive changeover. They also made the point that
in the Air Force some agents ‘rely’ on the ability of other agents to interact and
develop sound internal models and schemas. For example unit commanders will rely
on their Senior Non-Commissioned Officers to develop sound methods for achieving
the unit mission.
What I learned from this cycle, in terms of complex adaptive systems, is that,
depending on the nature of an organisation’s business and the nature of its operating
environment, it may need to be rapidly adaptable to survive. Aggregation activity
may need to be encouraged through more effective organisational structures that bring
personnel into contact with others with dissimilar views and from different work
areas.
What Changed. Participants suggested that I change a couple of the slides to
remove the confusion between attributes and concepts. The handout also needed to be
changed to reflect the above. They also suggested that I cover the attributes in the
current order but that I do not number them on the slides or in the handout. Changing
the heading on the handout to “Attributes of Complexity Theory” was also suggested.
Lastly, participants suggested changing the questions after each discussion of
attributes to: 1. How does this help in understanding organisations? (general), and 2.
What about understanding the Air Force or the MSA?
Changes to tool. In light of the above suggestions the concept number, ie.
‘Concept 1’ was removed from the six slides that introduced the concepts. Two
questions were now added to my notes on each concept slide: ‘How does this help in
understanding organisations?(general), What about understanding the Air Force or the
MSA? (specific)’. The layout of the handout was changed to show attributes arranged
in a circle around the title.
Findings – action research cycle 4
Starting
assumptions
This focus group workshop will be the most effective thus far,
based on the feedback from the previous three. People who have a
tendency to think in concrete terms will be challenged by the
concepts of complex adaptive systems.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
105
_____________________________________________________________________
Major Findings
Process – The tool will work with pragmatic participants. One
should not prejudge how the material will be absorbed by
individuals.
Content – More ideas were provided on how the concepts could be
applied including interaction between internal and external agents.
What changed
Process – The use of colour in the handout. An explanation of who
would have access to research findings and a fuller explanation of
the parts of the focus group workshop.
Content – More time was given to participants to absorb the
attributes before commencing with the definition of terms.
Table 6 – action research cycle 4 findings
Starting assumptions. Action research Cycle 4 occurred in Melbourne (Vic.)
on 12 February 2003. For this cycle I was conscious of conducting the focus group
workshop early in my visit to the team. In other cases, I had conducted the focus
group workshop near the end of my visit with the team. Conducting the focus group
workshop early in the visit could mean that participants have the visit, and issues they
wish to raise, on their minds and may be less relaxed than they might be later in the
visit. Further, the handout that I use during the focus group has changed quite
significantly in format so it should be interesting to see how it is accepted. The revised
handout will either help a lot or they will recommend that it return to what it was
previously.
Conducting the focus group workshop early in the team visit meant that the
interaction within the group could have been more stilted. This possibility may have
increased my level of apprehension. Another fact that weighed on my mind was that
one of the focus group members is very matter-of-fact and thinks in very concrete
terms. I was not sure how he would respond to the more intangible and conceptual
nature of the complex adaptive systems material.
A desirable outcome for this cycle would be that the group would warm
quickly to the idea of being exposed to the new material and can offer some good
pragmatic advice not only on the content of the focus group but also on the focus
group process. A second desirable outcome is that the team gets something positive
from the material in terms of learnings and exposure to new ways of thinking about
organisations. I would like to think that not only my objectives are achieved but also
that the team consider the exercise worthwhile. If I get positive feedback, particularly
from the pragmatic member of the team it could mean that what I have been
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
106
_____________________________________________________________________
proposing has appeal to a wider range of people, some of whom have a preference for
a higher degree of structure.
I needed to get myself into a confident and easygoing state before
commencing the focus group. Despite my inward concerns I needed to ensure that I
proceeded at a leisurely pace and provide plenty of practical examples to explain
Doolittle’s model. I needed to reinforce to myself that it was acceptable for
participants to disagree with what I was presenting and that I should not become
defensive of the material I was putting forward for their consideration. These
considerations were viewed as important given the nature of this cycle.
Major findings. The desired outcomes of this focus group workshop were
achieved. The group quickly warmed to the ideas presented and the potential
concerns with the more matter-of-fact member of the group did not unfold. I formed
the impression that they had been looking forward to the focus group workshop.
Furthermore, two members of the group had been exposed to Senior Executive
Seminars that introduced the concept of self-organising systems by Rod Anderson. I
was able to provide more detail than had been available during the Seminars,
particularly on how the concepts could be applied. I was satisfied with these
outcomes as the group was able to provide some very valuable feedback that could be
folded into the next cycle. For example, they suggested that I provide more time after
introducing an attribute for the participants in the focus group to digest it.
I learned from this cycle not to necessarily, pre-judge how people will take to
the material that I present. Whereas I had some initial concerns about how one
member of the group would react, he provided some valuable insights into how the
presentation may be improved, how the concepts could be used in a consulting
capacity, and how the handout could be further improved. The group also provided
some good insights into how external agents can interact with internal agents to create
interventions within organisations or operate as catalysts to create internal agent
interaction leading to updated models and schemas. This may provide useful insight
for areas of further study.
The main finding from Cycle 4 were not to pre judge how people might react
to the material presented. I also learned to provide more time for focus group
participants to absorb each concept before commencing discussion about it.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
107
_____________________________________________________________________
Participants in this cycle offered the following comments about the six
attributes.
Attribute 1. Being open can mean being open to more than one defined
environment. For example, open for MSA also means being open to management
ideas from the private sector. Managers and individual workers can be assisted in
understanding the far from equilibrium nature of their work and their organisation.
Some levels of disequilibrium are created internally in the organisation; for example
the Air Force posting cycle will decrease the level of equilibrium in affected work
places. The Air Force posting cycle creates levels of disequilibrium. Most managers
will accept far from equilibrium behaviour but only up to a point (bifurcation point?).
Most managers accept levels of disequilibrium but only within set control limits.
Participants felt that managers often see it as their role to create a level of equilibrium
in the organisation. Despite this, participants believed that the Air Force was
attempting to become more open.
Attribute 2. The Air Force creates contingency plans based on prediction.
Contingency plans will attempt to consider possible future scenarios in the external
environment. Further, the validity of particular experience needs to be tested each
time a ‘new’ situation arises. Where there are low levels of experience or no
experience there is generally greater fear of the unknown. In Air Force, adaptation to
quickly changing environments can lead to ‘knee-jerk’ reactions. And finally,
participants felt that experience in an organisation can become redundant if the
external environment changes significantly.
Attribute 3. As mentioned with this attribute in cycle 4, participants made the
point that, clients may have to be confronted with their models and schemas – which
may be unwritten and unspoken – in order to examine their utility. They also made
the point that organisational behaviour and models and schemas could be based on a
desire for ‘efficiency’, for example casualty departments at hospitals and identifying
causes of trauma.
Attribute 4. The process of interaction between agents takes time as does the
aggregation process. This time requirement could be important if the rate of change
in the environment is rapid. As noted in the previous cycle, the emergent behaviours
may not be acceptable to all agents. Participants believed that ‘values’ would form a
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
108
_____________________________________________________________________
component of models and schemas that that they would therefore be difficult to
change.
Attribute 5. Good ideas can come from any level in the organisation. As
consultants, participants felt that they could be used to assist the good ideas come out
ie. facilitate the dynamic constructive process. They also made the point that,
organisational dysfunction occurs where bosses put a cap on emergent behaviour.
This may however, be merely part of the active constructive process. The participants
also noted, however, that, the speed of emergent behaviour will vary between and
within organisations. They also made the intuitive comment that just about all of
their suggestions for changes within organisations come from within the organisation
itself, indicating that, as consultants, they facilitate the self-organising process. We
are often seen as the medium that connects the boss with his/her people.
Attribute 6. Participants in this group mentioned that, a MSA team model will
change if one member of that team does a job with another team. This implies that
agent interaction across organisational boundaries will be beneficial for both
organisations. They felt that they could assist their clients by helping them
understand where agent interaction is occurring within their organisations.
What I learned about the concepts is that openness can refer to more than one
environment. Further, disequilibrium can be created intentionally within
organisations. Experience held within organisations can become redundant and the
agent interaction and aggregation process takes time. Lastly, I learned that the speed
of emergent behaviour will vary.
What Changed. For the next cycle I was asked to update the handout to
reflect different colours to assist in identification of which attribute I am referring to.
It was also suggested that I give more time for participants to digest each attribute
after I have read it out and before I commence the definitions. The participants also
made the suggestion that I explain what I want from each attribute at the
commencement of Part 2 of the focus group.
Changes to tool. To the ‘Structure of Workshop’ slide (#2) I added comments
in my notes to more fully explain the parts ie. ‘explain what I think complex adaptive
systems are, explain the six attributes of complex adaptive systems, reflection and
feedback, and I have a handout to assist.’ I also added notes to say that, not only my
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
109
_____________________________________________________________________
thesis, but also the results of the research would be made available to Air Force and
Agency. In the ‘Why you and Management Services?’ slide (#4), I added the
comment of having easy access to the teams but that this created the methodological
problem of me also being in ‘control’. On slides #10 & 11 ‘Organisations and world
in which they come from’ I removed the comment from my notes that they were Rod
Anderson’s slides but acknowledged him as the source of the data.
On the complex adaptive systems summary slide (#13) I deleted ‘think about
organisations you have worked with, or MSA, or the Air force (a level thing)’ and
added, ‘What I want from each attribute from you: 1. Use for thinking about
organisations in general, 2. Use for thinking about MSA. How we can/could apply the
attribute.’ I added a note to myself on each concept slide – ‘Time to take in’ meaning
give the group time to think about the concept before explaining what the concept
means. Finally, on slide #16 my explanation of Internal Models or Schemas was
changed from asking a question – Do you think that organisations have particular
ways of seeing things and then dealing with things? ie a standard way of responding
to events? How things are done around here. to Organisations have a standard way
of responding to events or how things are done around here.
Findings – action research cycle 5
Starting
assumptions
The use of complex adaptive systems concepts may be more
challenging for people who work in and with extremely pragmatic
client organisations. The concepts may be seen to have less
relevance to these types of organisations. Some of the participants
suggestions for how the concepts can be used might be quite
different from the other groups.
Major Findings
Process – I needed to develop a way to deal with opposing views in
the focus group workshop. It is also counterproductive to rush the
workshop.
Content – Shared experiences within an organisation can be a
significant issue in self-organising and aggregation activity.
Recognising the need to adapt and adapting are two different
things.
What changed
Process – I needed to take more time with definitions and place
more emphasis on the question of applicability of the concepts to
the Air Force
Content - Include a definition of a simple system and explaining
why there are only six concepts in the model presented.
Table 7 – action research cycle 5 findings
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
110
_____________________________________________________________________
Starting assumptions. Action research Cycle 5 occurred in Williamtown
(N.S.W.) on 18 February 2003. The salient features of Cycle 5 were that this group
should be the largest yet that I have worked with. The group also works with very
pragmatic clients and, as such, the team must provide very pragmatic solutions. This
may mean that they think what I introduce will be of no use to them in their work
situation with their clients. Although I learned after cycle 4 that I should not prejudge
people, I felt that some members of this group might struggle with the conceptual
nature of the material. Having said that, one member of the group is a very
experienced consultant with international consulting experience.
The size of the group could well have an impact on the outcome of the focus
group because there may be less opportunity for interaction. The focus group
workshop may also take longer to conduct. Further, the clients that this group works
with may affect their views on the usefulness of the material. The desirable outcome
would be that a larger focus group leads to a more comprehensive outcome. Previous
experience has shown that, notwithstanding pragmatic clients, complex adaptive
systems have something to offer them in terms of organisational understanding.
These would be desirable outcomes because it would mean that Dolittle’s model of
complex adaptive systems is useful for organisational understanding with a wider
range of cleints. Again, I believed that if I used numerous examples of aspects of
complex adaptive systems in organisations in general and within the MSA in
particular, it would assist focus group participants in gaining an understanding.
Major findings. My post focus group reflections were that my outcomes
were achieved, although I was not happy with my presentation of the material. As I
had thought, some members of the group were quite critical of the material presented,
however there was a range of views and some opposing views on the same issue were
presented. I found that I needed to establish a method of dealing with contradictory
views within the focus group. Apart from recording on butchers’ paper what the
contradictory views were, I had no other strategy prepared. I decided that I still
wanted the outcomes of the focus group, as there were some good suggestions made
about how I could improve the presentation of the material and how an additional
handout may assist participants. I believed that by using the input from the group the
presentation could be improved and my understanding of complex adaptive systems
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
111
_____________________________________________________________________
improved, particularly with respect of how it can assist with understanding
organisations.
What I learned from the situation of Cycle 5 was that the group was not as
large as I had originally though due the absence of one member. Further, there was
limited time to conduct the focus group and that made me overly conscious of how
long the focus group was going to take. I needed to ensure that, in future, I take the
time to introduce the material in an unhurried manner. Having limited time available
made me apprehensive at the start of the presentation and this showed through in the
lack of confidence in my delivery. The focus group workshop participants provided
some good but contradictory advice that probably arose due to their individual
preference. Where a contradiction exists I would await further evidence before
making a change to the process or to the content.
The main findings of this cycle were that people within groups would not
necessarily agree with each other and that I needed to develop ways of dealing with
this from both a content and process perspective. I also learned that I could not rush
the focus group process and if there were time constraints in future, I should delay the
workshop rather than attempt to shorten it. I received disconfirming evidence for the
first time and will need to ensure if the same evidence is found again that I will need
to develop a process of exploring the difference.
In terms of the focus group workshop process, I found that the use of the tool
couldn’t be rushed. As complex concepts are being discussed, time is required for
explanation and for participants to absorb the information; this cannot be done
quickly.
Attribute 1. Participants stated that people will think in linear terms in an
effort to make sense of non-linear reality. People within organisations think of their
jobs in linear terms as a way of making sense of them. Some participants felt that this
attribute is self-evident, too general and too subjective to be useful, but that it still
provides a reference point for the other attributes. The attribute is subjective but still
provides a reference point. They thought that because most people will generally
view equilibrium as a good thing, some clients may have trouble understanding this
attribute.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
112
_____________________________________________________________________
Attribute 2. Participants believed that, other factors may influence adaptation
other than previous experience. Experience and the capacity to adapt are two quite
different things, however. Whereas the organisation may identify the need to adapt, it
may not have the resources to do so. In organisations like the Air Force, shared
collective experiences can be quite dominant in adaptation activities. Strong
personalities can also influence organisational behaviours.
Attribute 3. Participants felt that, where there were limited shared experiences
in organisations, this attribute would be constrained. As consultants, they felt that it
was their responsibility to understand the client’s models and schemas, and point out
where they thought that the models and schemas might be inhibiting appropriate
adaptive behaviour. In assisting with change, they believed they would seek
successful role models to model behaviours which will change the existing models and
schemas that are not appropriate.
Attribute 4. Agents may choose not to contribute to interaction with other
agents. Participants felt that the challenge for consultants would be to stimulate agent
interaction, and therefore the aggregation process. The ability to influence, and range
of diversity of views, is important in this attribute. This implied that all agents are not
equally influential and that the more diverse the range of view offered, the more likely
that effective adaptation can occur. Some participants offered a “so what?” response
to this attribute stating, “that’s life anyway.” Acknowledging that this is how life
works is nevertheless valuable in thinking about the other concepts.
Attribute 5. While mentioning some of the comments that had been
mentioned in previous cycles, this group also believed that some models and schemas
are not tested sufficiently. This referred to not only the relevance of the models and
schemas to the external environment but also to their currency. They also felt that
evidence of this behaviour in an organisation could be viewed as an indication of a
healthy organisation. A negative side of the attribute that they pointed out was that, if
viewed in a negative sense the attribute can contribute to learned helplessness. This
means that the ability of the organisation to adapt is compromised by its models and
schemas.
Attribute 6. Participants felt that, as consultants, investigating this attribute
may help us understand who the influencers are in an organisation. They also felt
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
113
_____________________________________________________________________
that influential agents within the organisation would have more leverage in how
things are done in organisations; not all agents have the same influence. Participants
also felt that understanding this attribute could also assist in understanding change in
organisations: we, as consultants, need to understand a client’s organisation, his
models and schemas.
What Changed. As a facilitator, I was required to take more time in
explaining the attribute definitions, and explain why there were only six attributes. I
was also asked to define what a system was earlier during the focus group. From a
process point of view, I had to remind myself to ensure that my equipment (laptop
computer and lite pro data projector) were set up and working properly prior to
commencing the focus group workshop.
Changes to tool. The ‘Background’ slide (#3) had comments added to the
notes that included the definition of ‘simple systems are input-process-output’. At
slide #13, I added the comments in the notes section of why there were only six
attributes ie, only six attributes were distilled from the literature reviewed as part of
the research process. On all the concept slides I added a note to myself to ‘take time
with definitions’. On all the concept slides I bolded the text on the note ‘What about
understanding the Air Force or the MSA? (specific)’ meaning to put more emphasis
on the question.
Findings – action research cycle 6
Starting
assumptions
While suggestions for minor changes to the tool are expected, after
5 cycles the expectation of suggestions for fundamental changes to
the tool should be more remote in terms of both process and
content. If there are many suggestions for improvement then
further cycles may have to be conducted, which I do not have the
time to undertake.
The inclusion of a ‘visitor’ from the first cycle will not put off
participants in this cycle if I explain the rationale for his
involvement.
Major Findings
Process – the more cycles that are conducted the fewer suggestions
for improvements there are.
Content – there were fewer questions about the content than were
evident in the earlier cycles.
As this was the last cycle no changes were made to the focus group
workshop process or content.
What changed
Table 8 – action research cycle 6 findings
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
114
_____________________________________________________________________
Starting assumptions. This is the final in my action research cycles.
Notwithstanding this, and my desire to complete my research, I needed to maintain
my consistency in the delivery of the material in the focus group workshop. I would
be concerned if many new ideas for improvement came out of this last cycle as there
have been steadily fewer suggestions for improvement over the most recent cycles for
either content or process. The situation was also going to be slightly different for the
group, as a participant from cycle 1 was to be present. His presence was to determine
whether there had been improvements in process and content since the cycle 1. As
this participant was not a member of the Richmond team, it may also have affected
the dynamic and behaviour of the group. The participation of ‘x’ may affect the way
the group behaves as he is not from the Richmond team. Given these salient features,
the desirable outcome was the general acceptance of complex adaptive systems as a
way of understanding organisations. Suggestions for minor improvements would also
be expected. Those were the desirable outcomes as they were consistent with
previous cycle outcomes. They would be desirable because they would assist in my
understanding of complex adaptive systems, and secondly improve the process of the
focus group workshop.
I felt that if I took my time the focus group workshop should run well. I also
believed that, I will also need to take time to explain the action research process and
the inclusion of the outside member of the group for objectivity in the research
process. If the feedback from the previous cycles was reliable, and if I took my time,
there should be a good level of understanding of the content by the focus group
workshop participants.
Major findings. Action research Cycle 6 occurred in Richmond (N.S.W.) on
26 February 2003. The outcomes of the focus group workshop were largely achieved.
The impact of the outsider sitting-in on the focus group workshop did not seem to put
off any of the participants. There also seemed to be a general level of interest in the
material and there were various improvement suggestions offered.
The outcomes of the focus group workshop were generally positive and the
participants felt that they could use the complex adaptive systems concepts in their
work with clients. The outcomes add to my confidence that the attributes can assist
organisational practitioners understand client organisational behaviour.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
115
_____________________________________________________________________
What I learned from this cycle was that as the number of action research
cycles increases the amount of variation between them decreases so that there appear
to be fewer surprises in the later cycles. The interest evoked through the earlier
cycles wanes somewhat where less new suggestions for improvement are made. I also
found that I would probably need to conduct a focus group workshop for a different
group of people outside the MSA to see if they had similar views notwithstanding a
lack of formal training in management consulting.
Attribute 1. In organisations, non-equilibrium and sustainability must be
issues. For Air Force this will include issues such as organisational and operational
tempo. Newer and younger members of the Air Force are demanding some internal
policies be changed due to their differing expectations of what they want from the
experience of being in the Air Force. The younger people coming into the
organisation through the recruiting process are having greater impact as they have
different expectations of what they want from Air Force and how long they expect to
serve causing Air Force to rethink its policies and causing internal change. Where
organisations get into trouble is often where they have been unable to adapt to the
changes imposed through being open to the external environment.
Attribute 2. We (Air Force/Defence) acknowledge experience but whether we
value it is the question! Defence and Air Force’s promotion system, for example, is
based largely on experience. Whether the organisation values these people and, in
particular their experience, is the moot point. Internal systems in the Air Force are
designed to increase the experience levels of staff; for example the posting system is
designed to expose people to a range of different roles and experiences. The down
side to this is that just as people can become productive they can be posted out. The
Air Force attempts to use experience in ‘lessons learned’ activities however the
challenge is actually implementing changes based on the experience gained.
Participants felt that, as an organisation, the Air Force can often fail to capitalise on its
learnings.
Attribute 3. Participants felt that openness, education, and awareness of the
external environment could affect this attribute. We need to increase our exposure to
alternative ways to change our models and schemas. One participant believed that
the attribute indicated ‘business as usual’ and was really nothing new. Other
participants pointed out that many change initiatives in the Air Force in that past have
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
116
_____________________________________________________________________
not considered the human aspects of the change to a sufficient degree. Further, there
are numerous internal barriers, in the form of policies and rules that inhibit useful
organisational development. As consultants, they felt that we can attempt to influence
only.
Attribute 4. Participants in this group felt that some of the work with the Air
Force’s Senior Leadership Team had not yet cascaded to lower levels of the Air Force
organisation. Nevertheless, they felt that, we, as consultants can attempt to influence
the aggregation behaviour of agents. They were also quick to point out that they
could work at multiple levels within the organisations they worked in to influence and
facilitate the aggregation process.
Attribute 5. Participants felt that ‘actively constructed’ would mean,
determined steps are taken rather than this happening by chance. They felt that
workshops they ran in client’s organisations encouraged this type of behaviour and
that the voices of all agents would be heard through this more structured and
facilitated process. They accepted that they could only act as facilitators of the
process, however.
Attribute 6. Participants felt that the Air Force’s organisational boundaries are
becoming looser in terms of agents interacting more with the external environment.
They felt that, as consultants, they could identify all the attributes of a client
organisation’s models and schemas. They felt that it was their role to assist client
organisations to challenge the way things are done internally.
What Changed. Although no other cycles were to be conducted, focus group
workshop participants were asked to suggest improvements. Some suggestions were;
use lower case text in the handout – the way we normally read, provide some
information and even pre-reading prior to the focus group, and the concepts are
difficult to fully digest in a three hour session. Because it was the last cycle, these
changes were not made to the tool described in Appendices B, C, and H.
Findings research question 1
Research question one is; is it possible to produce a practical tool that uses
the concepts of complex adaptive systems to assist members of organisations to better
understand their organisation? The literature review in Chapter 2 indicated that
through distilling much of the writing on complex adaptive systems and organisations,
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
117
_____________________________________________________________________
Doolittle’s model appeared as relevant as others and perhaps more comprehensive to
use for the dual purposes of increasing understanding of complex adaptive systems as
they relate to organisational understanding, and for practical applicability. Chapter 2
indicated that Doolittle’s model was relevant for this research. Through the action
research process I have attempted to examine whether the model is practical and
useful for organisational consultants to use. The first iteration of the focus group
workshop tool was challenging from both the researcher’s and the participant’s point
of view, however, based on the feedback from participants through the pilot study and
the five other cycles, and the researcher’s growing understanding of the application of
complex adaptive systems a practical tool was developed.
In terms of the findings for content, this can be broken down into a number of
areas. Firstly, in terms of understanding the concepts of complex adaptive systems
there were various views with the general consensus that the concepts were useful.
Although the terminology was challenging at first, with terms like non-linear, open,
equilibrium, schemas, agents etc, MSA consultants could see how to apply them in
the work environment to assist clients, not only in organisational understanding but
also in other consulting tasks such as reviews. Consultants could encourage
organisations they work with to become more open to their external environment
through activities such as planning. MSA consultants appeared keen to apply the
concepts in their work. Although a couple of individuals felt that some of the
concepts were too general to be useful, the first in particular, others believed that they
could be applied successfully.
The aspects of the concepts that discuss agent experience appeared to strike a
chord with MSA consultants. As the Air Force recruits at the junior level and grows
its people, experience is an important issue in the organisation and evidenced in many
of its structures and processes. They could see how these experience levels impact,
both positively and negatively, to a high degree on aggregation processes and the
establishment of models and schemas. The value of Concept 2, in terms of levels of
experience, was also discussed as it related to the MSA organisation.
Focus group participants acknowledged the value of Concept 3 in
understanding organisations. Having said that, the concept’s contention can either be
viewed positively or negatively, depending on the usefulness of the models and
schemas and their fit with the current external environment. It was also
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
118
_____________________________________________________________________
acknowledged that much of the work of internal management consultants is in
attempting to change existing models and schemas. From a consultant intervention
perspective Concept 3 was seen as being more useful than Concept 2.
The size of the client organisation, and the number of levels within it, was
seen as being a relevant factor in applying Concept 4. MSA consultants viewed this
concept very much in terms of organisational change interventions, and discussed the
concept in terms of change models that they had applied for clients. While it was seen
that MSA consultants could use this concept with clients, in terms of stimulating
agent interaction, it was acknowledged that the process would only be effective over a
longer time frame. MSA consultants can assist with the aggregation process in
organisations.
Just as MSA consultants can assist with aggregation processes participants
also felt that they could assist with emergent behaviours within client organisations.
Possibly because of the level at which much of the MSA work is done within the Air
Force organisation, there was a high degree of agreement about the formal and
informal aspects of organisational behaviour. Many felt that, when they worked with
a client, they actively facilitated the self-organising process. Some people felt that
Concept 5 could lead to learned helplessness if models and schemas were not
sufficiently tested. Concept 6 was seen as being relevant, not only for client
organisations but also for the MSA.
Of interest, in almost all of the concepts discussed, MSA consultants took a
very human view of the impact of the concept on individuals within the client’s
organisation, and on the client himself or herself. Whereas Doolittle’s concept
statements are impersonally written, they all require large amounts of human agent
interaction within organisations. Although the concepts are written this way, MSA
consultants could see how they would work with individuals as agents in
organisations.
Some participants felt that while the concepts were useful they were
challenging to fully assimilate in a three-hour session. They felt, however, that
complex adaptive systems provided a “how” to what actually happens in organisations
rather than a “what” the organisation is supposed to look like and behave. In this
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
119
_____________________________________________________________________
respect the concepts provide a dynamic model that can be used for working within
organisations.
The general consensus of those involved in the focus groups was that the
concepts were useful and could be applied in the work done with clients within the
Air Force organisation. They could also be applied to the MSA organisation. In
summary, it can safely be said that, within the confines of the Air Force organisation,
and using MSA consultants, it is possible to produce a practical tool that uses the
concepts of complex adaptive systems to assist members of organisations within the
Air Force to better understand their organisations.
Findings research question 2
Research question two is; If it is possible to produce a practical tool, does it
work? As the answer to research question 1 was a qualified yes, it is possible to
produce a practical tool, then what we need to discern from the results is whether or
not it works. The challenge in this respect is what constitutes a working tool. Is it
merely a view that it can be applied or is it a more fundamental testing of the tool in
use over a period of time? Doolittle’s concepts, when introduced through a focus
group workshop tool, work in that MSA management consultants understand them
and can apply them to what they see in client organisations within the Air Force.
They have acknowledged that it provides a useful perspective and metaphor to
examine and work with organisational understanding. It has provided them with a
way to explain aspects of organisational understanding to their clients and to the
client’s personnel. Participants in the focus group workshops also believed that they
could apply the concepts in understanding their own organisation; the MSA. The
concepts of complex adaptive systems provide a sound conceptual model for internal
management consultants to use within the Air Force.
The foregoing is not to say that Doolittle’s model is not without its
shortcomings in terms of it providing a good, applied model. While the model is
adequate at the conceptual level, it is challenging for practitioners to implement
complex adaptive systems into their work. The model does not provide a “how to”
list of activities that can be done in organisations to provide them with advantages
accrued through thinking in complex systems terms. Indeed, some of the terminology
used in Doolittle’s model could be changed to make it more ‘user friendly’ without
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
120
_____________________________________________________________________
losing its conceptual underpinnings. Elements of the model, such as the overlapping
nature of its concepts, detract more from the model as an applied construct,
notwithstanding their value at the conceptual level. While it may be possible to
reword Doolittle’s overlapping concepts, any attempt to do so risks losing the general
aspects of the original model and imposing an organisational contextual boundary
around the concepts. This would also involve a degree of interpretation by the
amender that would impose a filter for further interpretation.
Although this research can conclude that the practical tools does work in the
situation it was applied in, this probably needs to be tested further, possibly in
longitudinal research within the one organisation and also with participants who are
generalist managers rather than management consultants.
Conclusion
This chapter set out to outline the results of the research process. It has done
this by explaining firstly the results of the pilot study, and secondly the findings of the
action research cycles. The chapter then proceeded to address the findings in terms of
answering research question 1 and research question 2. While the research questions
can be answered from examination of the results, there are limitations and challenges
with using Doolittle’s model in a practical sense.
This research has contributed to the knowledge surrounding the application of
complex adaptive systems to organisational understanding by firstly finding a model
of complex adaptive systems (Doolittle’s), secondly developing a tool to introduce the
model (Focus Group Workshop), and finally examining its utility with a group of
experienced management consultants. It can now be acknowledged that while the
concepts are challenging to understand and take time to fully comprehend, the use of
complex adaptive systems as a metaphor for organisational understanding can work.
Further, it is possible to use action research to develop a process for enlightening
experienced individuals in complex adaptive thinking and how to apply concepts of
complex adaptive systems to organisational situations. In particular, MSA consultants
can readily use complex adaptive systems in their understanding of organisational
behaviour in the Air Force, and more specifically, Doolittle’s model of overlapping
concepts in assisting Air Force clients in better understanding their organisations. My
findings, and the focus group workshop tool developed, may be relevant to other
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
121
_____________________________________________________________________
organisations and perhaps to other groups of people with a reasonable understanding
or organisational systems (Dick, 1993). The focus group workshop tool is explained
at Appendices B, C, and H so that other researchers can use it if they wish.
Although there were methodological problems in conducting six action
research cycles over a relatively short period of time my findings remain relevant. An
opportunity to conduct a seventh cycle with a different group of people who were less
expert in organisational consulting may have proved valuable, however the time
limitations of this study prevented such an activity. The implication of this for my
research is in the generalisation of which I can make about my findings to other areas
within Air Force in particular and to other organisations in general. This is discussed
further in Chapter 5. Further, my methodology did not offer an alternative to complex
adaptive systems for organisational understanding so there is nothing to say that there
may be a better model for organisational understanding. It is important to point out,
however, that none of the experienced consultants that took part in the focus groups
suggested an alternative model either.
A relevant question in a wider context of how an understanding of complex
adaptive systems may assist us in understanding organisations is, ‘does the new
understanding of organisations and networks as complex adaptive systems help us as
managers or does it merely make us more comfortable with not being sure what we
do?’ (Wollin et al., 2002). The very nature of complex adaptive systems means that
to test this would provide significant methodological challenges.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
122
_____________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
The intent of this chapter is to summarise the main arguments of the report and
to conclude the report. This report commenced at Chapter 1 with providing a
comprehensive background to a problem that exists for Air Force in the current
environment and suggested that the use of aspects of complex adaptive systems may
provide a way to overcome that problem. An exploration of the relevant literature in
complex adaptive systems and how it relates to organisations was provided in Chapter
2. A suitable and relevant research methodology of action research was then
explained and justified in Chapter 3. The application of this methodology produced
results, which were analysed in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 concludes the report. This
chapter will consist of this introduction, and then move on to discuss conclusions that
can be drawn about the research questions. Conclusions about the research problems
will then be discussed before moving on to discussing implications for the theory, and
implications for policy and practice. How this might relate to private sector managers
and to public sector policy analysts and managers will then be addressed. Finally the
limitations of my research and opportunities for further research will be discussed.
An outline of the chapter structure is provided below.
Introduction
Limitations
Conclusions about
research questions
Conclusion about
research problem
Implications for
the theory
Public sector
policy analysts
and managers
Private sector
managers
Implications for
policy and
practice
Further research
Figure 5. Diagrammatical Structure of Chapter 5
Conclusions about research questions
This section will summarise the findings for each research question from
Chapter 4 and explain these findings within the context of this and previous research
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
123
_____________________________________________________________________
reviewed in Chapter 2. It will indicate with which previous research the current
research agrees and with which research it appears to contradict.
It would be recalled that this report has examined whether it is possible to
produce a practical tool that uses the overlapping concepts of complex adaptive
systems to assist members of organisations to better understand their organisation.
The major research question is;
Research Question 1: Is it possible to produce a practical tool that uses the
concepts of complex adaptive systems to assist members of organisations to better
understand their organisation?
The practical tool developed to test this research question was a focus group
workshop based on six overlapping concepts of complex adaptive systems. Because
there was a requirement for the tool to be practical, it had to be tested, at least at the
conceptual level. The secondary research question is;
Research Question 2: If it is possible to produce a practical tool, does it work?
The two research questions were approached by distilling the relevant
literature on complex adaptive systems and arriving at what was thought was a
reasonable model, based on the attributes of complex adaptive systems, for assisting
management consultants and other interested parties in understanding their
organisation and how people in that organisation behave and interact with each other
and the environment over time. The model selected was that presented by Doolittle
(2002). His model of six overlapping concepts of complex adaptive systems states
that:
1. Organisations are non-linear, open, and far from equilibrium.
2. Organisational behaviour is a result of adaptation to the environment, based
on experience.
3. Organisational behaviour is function of internal models or schemas that are
the result of perceived regularities in experience.
4. Internal models and schemas are actively constructed, self-organised and
emergent.
5. Internal models and schemas are a function of both agent interaction and
existing internal models and schemas.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
124
_____________________________________________________________________
6. Emergent global complex system behaviour involves the aggregate
behaviour of agents.
In order to test the applicability and usefulness of the model, it was trialled
with six of the Air Force’s internal management consulting teams. I employed the
technique of focus group workshops within the framework of an action research
methodology. My belief was that through exposing the model to a range of
experienced management practitioners I would learn how to develop the most useful
and practical tool to introduce complex systems thinking to organisations.
I therefore developed a basic focus group workshop structure that posed the
six overlapping concepts of complex adaptive systems for discussion. The intent of
conducting the focus group workshops was, in Action Research terms, to learn both
about the content of the focus group workshop (complex adaptive systems as it relates
to organisational understanding) and also about the focus group workshop process
(structure and flow) so as to continually improve the focus group workshop tool
through further cycles and a process of personal active reflection as suggested by Dick
(1998b).
The finding for Research Question 1 was that complex adaptive systems and
Doolittle’s model were found to be useful in the context they were explored in,
although the terminology is new and challenging for people being exposed to complex
adaptive systems for the first time. Complex adaptive systems are different to what
people are familiar with and time needs to be devoted to fully explain the meaning of
the concepts and the terminology. MSA consultants felt that Doolittle’s overlapping
concepts of complex adaptive systems appeared to build on each other with subtle
similarities and differences between the concepts. They could see how they might
apply all the concepts in client organisations albeit with some consultants expressing
slight misgivings. All felt that the concepts dealt particularly well with the dynamism
of organisational behaviour. Based on comments from focus group workshop
participants, with respect to process, a better approach may have been to conduct two
focus group workshops with a break in between. They felt that this may have allowed
a wider and deeper understanding of complex adaptive systems and how it might
relate to organisational understanding.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
125
_____________________________________________________________________
The exploration of Doolittle’s model through the focus group workshop tool
revealed that Air Force internal management consultants understand the concepts and
can develop ideas on how they can apply them in organisations. It provides them with
a way to explain aspects of organisational behaviour to their clients and members of
organisations. They believe that Doolittle’s concepts can be used effectively within
the Air Force organisation and that they can be explained by using the focus group
workshop tool. While Doolittle’s model is adequate at the conceptual level, it is
challenging for management consultants to implement in their work. The model does
not provide a “how to” list that can be used to implement the concepts in an
organisation. Some of the terminology in Doolittle’s model could be changed to
make the concepts more user friendly without changing the meaning of the concept.
Some focus group workshop participants felt that Doolittle’s first concept was
too general to be of much use to management consultants and further, that clients who
do not understand complex adaptive systems would have trouble coping with the
concept. Some focus group workshop participants felt that Doolittle’s fifth concept
could lead to learned helplessness if models and schemas are not sufficiently tested.
Focus group workshop participants took Doolittle’s first concept to mean that
good organisations should aspire to be non-linear, open, and far from equilibrium as
this is where they can be the most adaptive and responsive.
Overall, my results for Research Question 1 indicate that in the Air Force, and
using MSA consultants, it is possible to produce a practical tool that uses the concepts
of complex adaptive systems to assist members of organisations to better understand
their organisations. Focus group workshop participants felt that the focus group
workshop was a good way of introducing the concepts to organisational management
consultants.
Research Question 2 built on Research Question 1 and sought to assess, at
least at the conceptual level, whether or not the focus group workshop tool would
work. In terms of process, and in addition to the findings for Research Question 1,
participants in the focus group workshops felt that a handout should be provided as an
aide memoire for use during the focus group to make recall, and therefore, discussion
easier. They also felt more time to explain the concepts and providing some examples
assisted in comprehension. The paradox with attempting to answer Research
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
126
_____________________________________________________________________
Question 2 is that it runs counter to one of the attributes of complex adaptive systems
in that cause and effect are often distant in time and space. It is therefore difficult to
tell whether the tool has worked in the time frame available for this research at any
but the most rudimentary level.
After six cycles of the action research focus group workshops, I believe I now
have a tool that I can effectively use to introduce Air Force internal management
consultants to the value of using Doolittle’s overlapping concepts of complex adaptive
systems to better understand organisations. The tool that I have developed is the
focus group workshop, based on Doolittle’s model, that I have designed. I have
trialled it with internal management consultants and found that whereas it works with
this group, it is demanding to use and the concepts of complex adaptive systems are
difficult for participants to grasp conceptually in the short period of time of the focus
group workshop. Throughout the research process I made some significant changes to
the working model of the focus group workshop such that it can now be used in an
effective and efficient manner to introduce concepts of complex adaptive systems to
Air Force management consultants.
It will be recalled from Chapter 2 that one of the gaps identified in published
research was that no researcher has attempted to develop and implement a tool that
uses the concepts of complex adaptive systems to assist members of an organisation to
better understand it. For this reason there is little relevant previous research that my
results can be compared against to determine where there is agreement or
disagreement. The work of those researchers that have described findings as close as
possible to my research have been utilised. Indeed some have suggested that complex
adaptive systems thinking cannot simply be applied to organisations (Stacey, 2003).
Some of the data from the focus group workshops suggested relevance for the
organisational activity of strategic planning. This is similar to the research in
Westpac and Royal Dutch/Shell who embraced elements of complex adaptive systems
in setting their strategic agenda for the future. The Shell experience, although it is
unclear what processes they employed, found that experimentation, rapid learning,
and seizing the momentum of success was a much better approach to setting a
strategic agenda for the future than that offered by traditional management methods.
They found that solutions to ongoing challenges were best generated by the people
closest to the action. This is consistent with the view expressed by some focus group
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
127
_____________________________________________________________________
workshop participants who have conducted interventions and strategic planning
activities in Air Force units. Some aspects of integrating complex adaptive systems
thinking into organisations may be seen as challenging for conventional, hierarchical
organisations. For example, pushing decision-making down as much as possible,
encouraging top down and bottom up reporting of information, active searching at all
levels, and nurturing informal as well as formal communication channels as suggested
by Czerwinkski (1998) will challenge a military organisation.
While some researchers have attempted to show how changes in management
styles have changed over the last decade (Pina e Cunha et.al. 2001) there is little
available research on how to implement complex adaptive systems thinking into
modern management style. The Air Force’s Senior Executive Seminars and the work
that the Senior Leadership Team undertake have exposed participants to modern
management thinking, but have stopped short of advocating complex adaptive
systems thinking. There has been some experimentation will command and control
paradigms, chaos and complex adaptive systems in a couple of large consulting and
service companies but details of what they have found are not available. The general
move though, has been from one of management of the individual to management of
the group.
As Wollin et.al.(2002) found, many organisational researchers have avoided
complex adaptive systems because it deals with a level of abstraction that may be too
high for most people within an organisation. As noted in my results, however, it was
found by Air Force internal management consultants to be a useful way to explain the
behaviour of a dynamic system. Although Zimmerman, Lindberg and Plsek (1998)
proposed nine principles for using complex adaptive systems in organisations, they
did not examine how these principles would work in a real organisation. One of their
principles, go for multiple actions at the fringes, let direction arise, proposes
experimentation, which is consistent with the suggestions of other researchers.
Should Air Force internal management consultants choose to use complex
adaptive systems behaviour as a generative metaphor for organisational behaviour
they will be faced with numerous challenges, as already discussed, but they will also
see some benefits. Previous research into Air Force culture, discussed in Chapter 2,
indicates that the Air Force culture is relatively homogeneous and personnel who
participated in a culture survey in 1998 believed that things should be different in the
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
128
_____________________________________________________________________
future. This is consistent with the perception of Air Force personnel held by Air
Force’s internal management consultants. Sadly, the Air Force 1998 Culture Survey
showed that there was a degree of scepticism about the use of intuition and that there
was a preference for hard measures. Further, there was also a tendency for Air Force
personnel to have an inwards-looking, rather than external focus. Again, these views
were confirmed by focus group workshop participants. In the 1998 Air Force Cultural
Assessment Project survey there was also a preference expressed by respondents for
the more traditional methods of work. These preferred traditional work methods are
acceptable for encouraging agent interaction, as suggested by focus group workshop
participants, however it was acknowledged that effort will need to be extended to
encourage a more external, outward-looking focus.
In conclusion, this section summarised the research process adopted and the
main findings for Research Question 1 and Research Question 2. It then examined
these findings in light of what other researchers, summarised in Chapter 2, have
found.
Conclusions about research problem
This section of the chapter discusses the qualitative findings about the research
problem that have been developed during the research which have not been
considered in the literature reviewed in Chapter 2. It will include those insights
discovered during the focus group workshops that have not been considered in
Chapter 2.
It may be recalled that the general problem that this report addresses is
organisational understanding in the Air Force. Complex adaptive systems, it was
suggested, if used as a generative metaphor, may add richness to people’s
understanding of their organisations, particularly in the Air Force, and particularly for
internal organisational management consultants. It was found that complex adaptive
systems can successfully be used as a generative metaphor that can assist MSA
consultants understand their client’s organisation. The research proposition was that
complex adaptive systems would enable members of an organisation to better
understand it. As the researcher I needed to answer such questions as, “How do I
improve my understanding of organisations and assist others in doing so?” and/or
“How do I improve my practice, and the practice of others as management
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
129
_____________________________________________________________________
consultants?” These were the starting points for any theory of organisational
understanding that I might generate through the use of the complex adaptive systems
metaphor. These findings would also be appropriate for other management
consultants, however this cannot be assumed without further research.
The research area that I have worked within is one of organisational behaviour
and organisational understanding viewed through the lens of complex adaptive
systems thinking. My research proposition is that knowledge of complex adaptive
systems will enable members of an organisation to better understand it. Furthermore,
consultants who work with client organisations may be able to use a more appropriate
metaphor to understand organisations. While this is true for the Air Force, it may also
be true for other large organisations, however this cannot be assumed without further
research. My research set out to examine complex adaptive systems thinking in order
to offer a more sustainable and enduring way of explaining what is happening in
organisations. The aim of my research was therefore to show that a model of complex
adaptive systems could be used as a generative metaphor to assist the design of an
instrument to enable members of an organisation to better understand it. In particular,
I wished to find if MSA consultants thought that the model and focus group
workshop tool might be useful for their clients and whether they thought it might
assist both them and their client?
Wheatley (1999) proposed that a clear sense of organisational identity as a
reference is needed for an organisation to respond intelligently to changes in the
environment (Wheatley 1999). The RAAF Cultural Assessment Program found that
the Air Force certainly has a clear sense of organisational identity (1999). Where my
results may differ from previous research described in Chapter 2 is that the identity of
an organisation is not static but changes over time as a function of agent interaction
and changing environments. Secondly, freedom for people to make their own
decisions is also important. This other element of freedom is becoming more
prevalent as the Air Force downsizes.
A challenge for organisational consultants in the Air Force will be suggesting
that senior officer commanders and clients adopt leadership methods more consistent
with exploiting aspects of complex adaptive systems. In particular, when leaders are
under stress, their sensitivity to complexity, randomness and fuzziness that can assist
their understanding will be reduced. This is consistent with previous research,
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
130
_____________________________________________________________________
particularly in military environments outlined in Chapter 2. There may now be
greater scope to introduce aspects of complex adaptive systems in military thinking
due to a more ambiguous and complex threat environment now than in the past where
threats were more conventional. There may also be something that can be done to
give them some confidence in using their intuition or impulse to a degree in decision
making.
There is a move in the ADF, however, to become more capable of conducting
Effects-Based Operations (EBO) where a higher level of sensitivity to actions and
their consequent effects is required. Of interest in complexity-modelling is evidence
of the phenomenon of cause and effect not necessarily being related in time and space.
The fact that this can be demonstrated under modelling conditions, as outlined in
Chapter 2, reinforces its use as an aspect of complex adaptive systems. Further, under
EBO the ADF may have to consider alternative command and control organisational
structures to those which are currently used. The use of the complex adaptive systems
metaphor may also indicate to some leaders that it is impossible to control an
organisation (Snowden, 2002). These alternative structures may assist in distributing
uncertainty across a more diverse range of subordinate commanders and staff officers.
Another observation of focus group workshop members was that in rulesbased organisations, such as the Air Force, rules and regulations may stifle activities
that lead to aggregation and emergence. Previous researchers have suggested that
most management tools in the military are designed based on the value of control
(Tankey, 2001) and that the issue of control is often side-stepped in most research
(Stacey, 2003). Good and innovative ideas can be generated anywhere within an
organisation. It is the consultant who must facilitate the process whereby these good
ideas are recognised and put into practice. A greater range of potential solutions
should result.
My results from the focus groups indicated that most Air Force leaders and
managers have a tendency towards seeking equilibrium in their organisations and to
smooth workload peaks and troughs where possible. There is a tendency for most
managers to seek equilibrium and to remove the differences between entities (Stacey,
2000). This could mean that the Air Force is less likely to display adaptive
behaviours than other organisations. Openness is another area where the Air Force
may be underperforming in terms of complex adaptive systems behaviour. The Air
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
131
_____________________________________________________________________
Force tends to be quite internally focussed most of the time (1999) leading to the
potential to be surprised by changes in the external environment. Previous research
seems to indicate that openness in organisations tends to occur most frequently at
lower levels of the organisation at the organisational frontier where external
customers interact with sales staff. The interaction between internal and external
agents was identified by focus group workshop participants as a fertile source of ideas
about the external environment. This is the level at which good ideas are generated.
Planning workshops, facilitated by MSA personnel require participants to consider
their organisation’s external environment during SWOT analyses or Environmental
Analyses. Apart from these planning exercises, thinking about aspects of the external
environment is limited. The exception to this in the Air Force is in operational
planning where a great deal of information is collected about the operational
environment that will be encountered.
Although the Air Force currently conducts experimentation, this
experimentation is focussed on future weapons systems capability rather than
organisational capability or command and control structures. Air Force
experimentation is seen, by some, as a risk mitigation strategy in terms of capability
development and acquisition. Even within this focus there is an underlying
recognition of the need for new capabilities to be adaptable so that when conditions in
the environment change, the capability, and the way that the capability is deployed,
can be adapted. In the final analysis, a right decision may be just as acceptable to the
Air Force as the best decision.
Wheatley (1999) has stated that, in her view, examining organisations using
mechanistic theory and reductionism does not work (Wheatley, 1999). Further, she
believes that mechanistically conceived social systems are inflexible and suffer when
faced with rapidly changing external environments. These social systems find it
difficult or impossible to be responsive to environmental changes. This was
confirmed by focus group workshop participants who stated that an organisation’s
policies and structures can form real barriers to behaviours that lead to aggregation
and adaptation. By using a complex adaptive system as a metaphor for organisational
behaviour, focus group participants could see how the organisation is dependent on its
environment for essential inputs or resources. Gharajedaghi et.al. stated that all parts
of this social system have purposes of their own and display choice. The performance
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
132
_____________________________________________________________________
of a complex adaptive system is not the sum of the independent performance of its
parts; it is the product of their interactions. Therefore effective management of a
system requires management of the interaction of the parts, not their independent
actions. Management of the social system’s interaction with the environment is also
required for it to function effectively (Gharajedaghi et.al., 2001).
As suggested in Chapter 2, management consultants may wish to consider the
five principles offered by Leddick (2001) that define the characteristics of, and
assumptions about, the behaviour of organisations viewed as sociocultural systems:
openness, multidimensionality, emergent properties, and counter intuitiveness.
Openness is about openness to the external environment. This is important for
organisations because it is difficult to predict the future. Openness was discussed
previously, as was steps that were suggested by focus group workshop participants to
improve the current inward-focus of the Air Force. Purposeful systems have purpose
and can produce the same outcome in different ways in the same environment and can
produce different outcomes in the same and different environments. The CAF, Air
Marshal Houston, has articulated a vision for the Air Force that includes a flexible and
adaptable approach to future challenges. It was Leddick (2001) that proposed that
multidimensionality is about complementary relationships among parts of the system.
He proposed that opposing tendencies in different parts of the system not only coexist and interact, but also form complementary relationships. The mutual
interdependence of opposing tendencies is characterised by an and instead of an or
relationship. Previous research has not addressed the time that is required for the
development of these relationships. Focus group workshop participants were of the
view that agent interaction, and aggregation of this interaction takes time and this time
will vary depending on the nature of the interactions. Emergent properties are
produced by the interaction, not the sum of the parts; multiplication, not addition.
Finally, counterintuitiveness is about actions that are intended to produce one
outcome but can produce just the opposite, and therefore prediction is an uncertain
science (Leddick, 2001). Focus group workshop participants felt that the
development of some models and schemas could lead to learned helplessness in the
short term particularly if they were maladaptive to the external environment.
Whereas many of the findings described in Chapter 2 were about describing
how complex adaptive systems could be used to explain the behaviours of
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
133
_____________________________________________________________________
organisations or industries, many of the findings from my research highlighted issues
with the implementation of complex adaptive systems thinking within the Air Force
organisation.
MSA consultants felt they could use complex adaptive systems thinking to
make a difference within organisations by confirming for people the degree to which
they can contribute. MSA consultants felt that they had a role in energising agents
and their interactions with each other. This is seen as being fundamental to improving
the work experience for individuals in the Air Force organisation. Communication
and information flows are also critical in this view. People will search out
information, knowledge and understanding about the internal systems, and its external
environment. In the Air Force organisation this is sometimes called the ‘learning
curve’ that people go through when they are posted into a new position.
Internal management consultants will certainly become aware of
communication and information flows in organisations where they are working. They
can encourage more information sharing so that a greater number of brains can work
on the problem thereby increasing its likelihood of being solved. Formal and informal
information flows need to be encouraged. Conversation within an organisation needs
to be stimulated and free-flowing to enable adaptation and emergence (Stacey, 2000).
Under complex adaptive systems thinking organisations can continuously
regenerate themselves to adapt to changes in the external environment through a
process or self-organisation. One trigger for this action of regeneration is when the
organisation’s systems are so overloaded or underperforming that they can’t achieve
their goals or function smoothly. At this time the organisation will achieve a new
configuration or it will fail. One wonders how many organisations currently exist in
the Air Force that are failing but have not yet accepted that fundamental new
configurations are required. Previous research does not offer a view on this, and my
research did not examine this aspect of complex adaptive systems except from the
perspective that intuition would tell an experienced leader that there was something
terribly wrong with an organisation.
Perhaps the more thorough examination of EBO will require some thought in
this area, particularly with respect to command and control structures and processes.
Further, the nature of the threat that Australia is now facing may provide impetus for a
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
134
_____________________________________________________________________
different way of thinking about how the ADF and the Air Force is structured and how
it needs to operate.
The limitations and paradox of using linear processes to explain the concept of
complex adaptive systems must be acknowledged in the education process. I found it
impossible to present complex systems thinking in a non-linear format. Previous
research offers no solution to this situation. The closest, in terms of attempting to
implement complex adaptive systems thinking in the workplace is offered by
Zimmermann et. al. (1998) who suggest growing complex systems by chunking and
starting small and building up. Focus group workshop participants believed that
people in organisations will think in linear terms to make sense of otherwise chaotic
environments. The acceptance of this paradox must be explicit. Linear thinking
currently allows us to make sense of otherwise too complex relationships and should
perhaps not be done away with. No view is offered on this issue by previous
researchers.
The size of the client organisation was considered a significant factor for
Doolittle’s fourth concept of emergent global complex systems behaviour and was not
considered by previous researchers in Chapter 2. It was felt by some focus group
workshop participants that it is more difficult to reach consensus on some issues and
to get “buy in” such that certain behaviours became emergent, not to assume that
consensus is required however. Emergent behaviour can become evident at lower
levels, or organisational sub-units within an organisation however this emergent
behaviour can be quite different to what is expected or anticipated. This aspect is
related to the issue of counterintuitiveness.
In summary, this section has discussed my qualitative findings about the
research problem that were developed through the research process, but which were
not considered in the literature review at chapter 2. It has explained the research
problem and the process used to address it. The section has also revealed that
whereas my research has confirmed many of the findings or previous research, some
aspects have not been addressed previously. It has also highlighted that the time for
Air Force to more carefully consider the benefits of using aspects of complex adaptive
systems thinking may be fast approaching in terms of the threat environment and the
move to Effects-Based operations.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
135
_____________________________________________________________________
Implications for the theory
The intent of this section is to outline the theoretical implications of this
research in terms of possible future research on complex adaptive systems in
organisations. The section will also consider aspects of the action research
methodology as a tool to introduce complex adaptive systems thinking in
organisations.
Because complex systems are inherently non-linear, applying them in a linear
organisational setting is bound to be challenging at many levels as mentioned in the
last section. Managers and Air Force leaders are generally taught to analyse and
problem-solve in a linear, Newtonian, fashion. Merely to understand the basic
concepts of complex adaptive systems is challenging from a Newtonian perspective
for experienced internal management consultants, let alone less experienced managers
and leaders. As it is difficult to grasp, the tendency can be to disregard it as a
meaningful and valid construct for organisational understanding. Furthermore, when
the concepts are introduced, participants in focus group workshops may be seeking
something new. They sometimes find that what they are engaged in is not so much
something new, but rather a new way of looking at something old. So something that
does not appear new and is quite difficult to grasp can appear to be too much of a
disincentive for some.
In the Air Force organisation, in particular, there is sensitivity to the use of
much of the terminology used in complex adaptive systems. These terms can often be
interpreted as a loss of control in what is normally an extremely controlled
organisational environment. The word chaos has particularly negative connotations.
Notwithstanding the challenges of grasping the idea of complex adaptive systems, the
idea of intuition appears to ‘ring a bell’ with many managers and leaders who have
developed long-term specialised knowledge and extensive experience. Further, focus
group workshop participants felt that whereas linear descriptions of organisations
articulate a role and function of ‘what’ an organisation is supposed to do, complex
adaptive systems offers a ‘how’ to actually think about how an organisation behaves.
Focus group workshop participants believed that most managers and leaders
within the Air Force organisation still seek equilibrium within the organisations they
lead and manage. A state of equilibrium is still considered by most as what should be
the norm rather than the exception. Even the focus of unit planning activities is often
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
136
_____________________________________________________________________
centred on attempting to achieve a degree of equilibrium at some stage in the future
even if it does not exist in the present. To suggest, as complex adaptive systems do,
that equilibrium leads to a lack of adaptability is difficult for many to accept.
Indeed highly developed systems, such as the Air Force, have developed
elaborate mechanisms such as negative feedback loops and buffering mechanisms to
dampen the effects of internal and external fluctuations and to maintain equilibrium
(Mathews et. al., 1999). The Air Force, like other organisations, probably uses these
mechanisms notwithstanding the creation of a greater level of misalignment with the
external environment. The risk of using these mechanisms is that short-term fixes are
adopted which do not address the underlying changes in the environment. Focus
group workshop participants believed that any organisation’s view of what is
considered equilibrium will vary depending on its organisational context. For
example an organisation pursuing a strategy of rapid growth, will not be in
equilibrium, or seeking equilibrium for some time.
In terms of Doolittle’s second concept of organisational behaviour being seen
as a result of adaptation to the environment, based on experience, some focus group
workshop participants felt that factors in addition to experience played a role in
adaptation to the environment. What these factors were could not be suggested
however. What is possibly more important in organisations is understanding how and
why decisions are made rather than necessarily knowing of the experience of the
people making the decision. From a management consultant’s intervention
perspective, Doolittle’s third concept of organisational behaviour being a function of
internal models and schemas that are the result of perceived regularities in experience
was seen as being more useful than his second concept of organisational behaviour
being seen as a result of adaptation to the environment, based on experience. Focus
group workshop participants felt that the difficulty of changing existing models and
schemas should not be underestimated in traditional and conventional organisations.
Further, they also highlighted the stress that occurs at the individual and group level in
organisations where internal models and schemas are in the process of changing.
It could also be argued, perhaps, that the organisational structure of the Air
Force does not immediately lend itself to firstly interacting with the external
environment and secondly creating internal agent interaction opportunities for the
development of emergent and adaptive behaviours. Doolittle (2002) discusses the
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
137
_____________________________________________________________________
spontaneity of order within open systems where self-organisation arises from the
interaction of agents and is not imposed by some external force. There was some
doubt expressed by focus group workshop participants, whether conditions that
encourage self-organisation would be particularly prevalent in the Air Force during
periods of peace and/or low operational tempo. The bureaucratic structure of the Air
Force means that the opportunity for regular agent interaction above the
workshop/flightline level is quite limited. Interaction at the meta-agent level is not
encouraged through Air Force structures or systems ie. groups of unit executives
mixing or meeting with other groups of unit executives to discuss what subordinate
agents are telling them and what they are learning form the external environment do
not occur. At the most senior level in the Air Force, until the formation of Senior
Leadership Team meetings in the last few years, there was no formal opportunity for
agent interaction. This is probably not dissimilar from the case in other large
hierarchical organisations.
Internal Air Force management consultants felt that they can assist managers
and leaders to think less about their individual personnel and more about the
interactions between their personnel and how this better informs thinking about
organisational understanding. Through these various agent relationships an iterative
process occurs that can change structures, functions and processes such that the
organisation can better adapt to the external environment. Some researchers have
noted that small groups at the tops of organisations control the resources that can act
as constraints or enablers to adaptation and emergence (Stacey, 2000). Comments
from focus group workshop participants indicated a greater desire to understand the
dynamic and ongoing nature of agent interaction and at what levels it occurs and can
be stimulated. Internal management consultants see a role for themselves in creating
the conditions conducive to agent interaction so they would like to know more about
how it works at the micro level. There is little information in previous research that
indicates this level of detail. There is, of course, scope for internal management
consultants to use the focus group workshop tool that I have developed for stimulating
agent interaction. For example, an organisational problem could be examined by a
group of agents, from a complex adaptive systems perspective. It has been suggested
that complex spaces need to be probed to stimulate pattern formation in complex
adaptive systems (Snowden, 2002).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
138
_____________________________________________________________________
In terms of action research methodologies, I found that in using my focus
group workshop tool over a number of iterations, there is just no way of knowing with
any certainty how people will react as individuals to complex adaptive systems
thinking; perhaps an aspect of counterintuitiveness itself! Notwithstanding this, just
about all participants in focus group workshops related to some aspect of complex
adaptive systems thinking. For example, the idea of intuitiveness appeared to strike a
chord with many experienced consultants. Further, participants in the focus group
workshops will disagree with each other and the facilitator must consider how to
manage this disagreement in a positive way while still being able to capture and use
the data in a meaningful way.
As a tool for introducing the concepts of complex adaptive systems to
organisations, the action research methodology worked well. The fuzziness of the
research problem at the beginning was supported by the flexibility that action
research, as a methodology allows. The focus group workshop tool changed
significantly through the six cycles providing at the end a robust tool for serving its
purpose. I believe that action research is a relevant methodology to use for both
discussing a conceptually difficult concept such as complex adaptive systems and also
for its inclusiveness in the Air Force organisation.
My research has taken the first tentative step in attempting to introduce the
theoretical concepts of complex adaptive systems to a real organisation. An easy
target was chosen as internal management consultants already possess a high degree
of general management knowledge and have accrued a degree of experience in
working within different organisations. If anyone is predisposed to understand
complex adaptive systems and what it can bring to organisational understanding then
it should be experienced management consultants. Even MSA consultants, however,
believe that an update on basic systems thinking would be a useful precursor to the
focus group workshop before moving on the complex adaptive systems thinking.
In summary, this section has discussed some of the theoretical implications of
my research commencing with the challenge that the concepts of complex adaptive
systems presents to people who have learned and think in a linear, Newtonian fashion.
Further, the sensitivity to complex adaptive systems terminology was discussed, as
was the desire to maintain equilibrium in organisations. Notwithstanding the
challenges presented, many people will associate with some aspect of complex
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
139
_____________________________________________________________________
adaptive systems but at the same time appreciate the tensions and challenges created
by changing models and schemas within an organisation. An interest in stimulating
agent interaction indicates an area where more research could be undertaken in the
future. Finally, the use of action research is a viable and useful tool to use for the
discussion of complex adaptive systems concepts, including within an Air Force
organisation.
Implications for policy and practice
The intent of this section is to state the implications for policy and practice of
introducing complex adaptive systems thinking as a metaphor for organisational
understanding in the Air Force and of using Action Research as a methodology to
assist in this process. Some of the anticipated barriers to introducing the concepts will
also be stated. These thoughts are the researcher’s own, but are based on the
experience of conducting the research.
There are many activities that the Air Force currently undertakes that lend
themselves to the consideration of complex adaptive systems thinking. These include
Air Force experimentation activities, the activities of the Adaptive Leadership
Program and the Senior Leadership Team, and after action/post deployment “lessons
learned” sessions. Further, the ongoing work of the Management Services Teams in
assisting commanders implement change and improve organisational performance
provides an opportunity for the use of both complex adaptive systems thinking and
also the use of action research methodologies. These different activities will now be
examined in more detail.
The Air Force has an active experimentation program which, among other
activities, tests and validates concepts about how the Air Force will organise itself and
fight in the future. There is scope for aspects of complex adaptive systems to be
integrated into some of these experimentation activities. For example, one aspect of
complex adaptive systems that could be tested is the behaviour of dissipative
structures, particularly in times of combat where force builds up within an
organisation, say a deployed Air Force organisation, until it dissolves and a new
organisation is created that better meets the needs of the environment. The behaviour
and understanding of dissipative structures is relevant in this capacity. In viewing Air
Force organisations as complex systems then we can acknowledge that they must
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
140
_____________________________________________________________________
continually generate information, particularly from the external environment.
Experimenting with command and control structures within an Air Force command
system using aspects of complex adaptive systems may also prove beneficial. The
costs of integrating complex adaptive systems thinking into the existing
experimentation program would be negligible, however the process and evaluation of
the experiment would require some hours of analysts’ time.
As mentioned in an earlier section, the Air Force’s Senior Leadership Team is
now involved in a process of creating sustainable leadership behaviours. There is
scope for their ongoing activities to include aspects of complex adaptive systems.
Other researchers (Glover, Friedman & Jones, 2002b) have found that adaptive
leaders tend to encourage the adaptiveness of their organisations. They can often
require their organisations to undertake scenario planning to prepare their
organisations for possible futures and to encourage adaptive thinking. There is an
opportunity to encourage all Air Force leaders to consider the use of these tools as a
way of expanding their thinking and the future adaptive skills of their various
organisations.
The difficulty in employing complex adaptive systems thinking in the Air
Force environment would be in overcoming the traditional linear, Newtonian training
model that has been used for many years in the Air Force and that the majority of Air
Force members have adapted to and are comfortable with. In this respect, action
research could become an integrated part of any individual and group learning activity
already conducted. This would not require additional financial or other resources on
top of current training costs to implement.
The Air Force will often conduct assessments of activities after they have
occurred. These are sometimes called ‘hot washups’, ‘after action’, ‘lessons learned’
or ‘post deployment’ debriefs. At this time the ‘lessons learned’ are distilled from the
activity so that, hopefully, the same mistakes are not made again, and the activities
that worked well are retained. While this is not a formal process, more value could be
gained from the resources applied to the activity by adopting aspects of complex
adaptive systems thinking in the process and how to effectively use the results. For
example the creative process of developing new models and schemas based on shared
experiences would be particularly relevant during these washups. Further, much more
notice is taken of the external environment during combat operations or exercises and
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
141
_____________________________________________________________________
plans and actions are rapidly changed in response to the demands of this environment.
Therefore using complex systems as a metaphor for organisational understanding
should be consistent with those experiences of operations or exercises and relevant for
the Air Force’s post operational activities.
The process for washup activities is important because one of the implications
for complex adaptive systems in practice is the concept of failures in double-loop
learning (Sterman, 2000), which is used to describe the process of assimilating
information from the real world into mental models or schemas in complex systems.
The failures may be useful in explaining the phenomenon of different agents or metaagents perceiving the same events but in different ways. The washup activity permits
the exploration of these perceived failures.
Action research could be used as a means of educating members of the Air
Force in the use of complex adaptive systems as a metaphor to improve organisational
understanding, with an aim being to develop the capacity to engage in productive
double-loop learning. Whereas Air Force personnel are accepting of the briefing,
doing and debriefing construct, particularly for operational activities, the structures,
and capacity for, learning from the activity is questionable. The understanding of and
use of an action research model would provide the opportunity to close this loop. The
cost of implementing aspects of complex adaptive systems thinking into post activity
evaluations and into briefing and debriefing activities would be negligible and would
only require a facilitator experienced in the concepts of complex adaptive systems.
The findings of my research show that MSA consultants believe that
organisational understanding in the Air Force can be improved through the use of
complex adaptive systems as a metaphor for understanding organisational behaviour.
The workshop tool that I have developed, used and improved, could be used more
widely in the Air Force, possibly by members of the MSA, to educate members of the
Air Force in its usefulness in understanding organisational behaviour. A trial could be
undertaken where MSA consultants work with an Air Force unit or units, to
implement complex adaptive systems thinking using an action research methodology.
In this way the value of the use of the complex adaptive systems metaphor could be
more fully explored and assessed. This activity would take some months, if not years,
to implement and assess. The cost of undertaking this trial would be no more
expensive that most of the business improvement tasks that MSA teams currently
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
142
_____________________________________________________________________
undertake, particularly where Air Force units seek assistance in improvement
activities. For example, consultants may wish to encourage positive feedback loops in
organisations so as to amplify small disturbances and drive the system away from
equilibrium. This will facilitate greater innovation and change in the organisation
(Wollin and Perry, 2002).
Although some researchers, as discussed in Chapter 2, have proposed ways for
managers to manage their organisations as a complex adaptive system, there remains
little guidance available to practicing managers, or for that matter, internal
management consultants. Indeed the issue is problematic in itself because one agent
(a manager) can do little on his or her own and it is the interaction between agents that
creates opportunities for growth and adaptation. There are, however some actions
managers can take with respect to information flows, diversity, connectivity, power
differentials and anxiety among members of the organisation. For example
experimenting more in the workplace may provide a wider range of insights that point
the way to more relevant processes and approaches. A degree of caution needs to be
exercised by MSA consultants when considering the state of the external environment
of organisations it works with. Adaptation to an external environment can lead to
disaster if the adaptation is to a deteriorating environment (Gharajedaghi, 1999).
It would be naïve to think that the Air Force would embrace complex adaptive
systems thinking without question. One of the barriers to the successful introduction
of complex adaptive systems thinking into the Air Force is that many leaders and
managers will choose to assess complex adaptive systems thinking just as they would
assess any other new management technique. They many choose to ‘implement’ the
technique and wait for an indication of success or failure, usually within a short timeframe. Unfortunately for complex adaptive systems, cause and effect are distant in
time and space and the concepts could be disregarded prematurely.
The conditions under which complex adaptive systems flourish are
characterised by instability and non-equilibrium behaviour. Traditional managers,
including Air Force leaders, see it as their role to create stability and equilibrium.
Herein lies one of the paradoxes of using complex adaptive system behaviour as a
generative metaphor to assist organisational understanding and has been mentioned
before.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
143
_____________________________________________________________________
A real and current barrier is the capacity in terms of time and resources to
undertake anything extra on top of current workloads. The issue of redundant
capacity (James, 2001) in organisations is an important one for the Air Force,
particularly in the current, resource constrained, environment. Organisations require
spare capacity to have the energy to be adaptive to the environment. When an
organisation is over-stretched, like the Air Force is today, it is less capable of adapting
to changes in its environment. This leads to a potential vulnerability where the Air
Force may need to change to adapt to the environment but is too overstretched to have
the ability to do so.
A possible question that could be asked with respect of implementation of
aspects of complex adaptive systems is; what would be the benefits of a complex
adaptive systems model over any other model for organisational understanding?
While this has been answered throughout the body of this report, the final analysis
suggests that by adopting aspects of complex adaptive systems to understand
organisational behaviour a more sustainable and realistic model is provided. It is also
a model that can deal with the dynamism of organisations better than other models.
In summary, this section has shown that while action research and the use of
complex adaptive systems as a metaphor for organisational understanding is new and
challenging, there is scope to introduce it more fully into the Air Force. Particularly
in the areas of experimentation, the Adaptive Leadership Program, in after action
“lessons learned” sessions, complex adaptive systems and action research can be
accommodated very effectively. Further, the ongoing work of the MSA can
accommodate both the action research methodology and complex adaptive systems in
assisting their clients to manage change and improve organisational performance.
Although a fuller integration of complex adaptive systems is possible, several barriers
were discussed.
Private sector managers
After considering the use of complex adaptive systems and action research in
the Air Force organisation, this section will move on to discuss the applicability of
using a complex adaptive systems model as a metaphor for organisational
understanding by private sector managers. It will also discuss the use of the action
research focus group workshop as a methodology for introducing complex adaptive
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
144
_____________________________________________________________________
systems into private sector organisations. This section will firstly consider specific
private sector industries where complex adaptive systems thinking could be of
particular use, before moving on to consider the more general issue of management
training and development. These thoughts have been extrapolated from the specific
research findings conducted within the Air Force organisation. Much of what was
mentioned in the previous section is relevant for private sector organisations and will
not be reiterated here.
A fundamental theme of complex adaptive systems is their relationship with
the environment. While the relationship between the Air Force and its external
environment has been discussed at some length, there are many private sector
organisations that have very close and active relationships with their respective
operating environments. For example, where organisations work with leading edge
technologies in a time sensitive market where there are many competitors, aspects of
adaptability are crucial for ongoing commercial success. For example, the idea of
rugged adaptive landscapes and peaks, ridges and valleys (Kauffman, 1992) may be
of use to private sector managers who work in leading edge technologies and markets.
They would probably find that the work of their agents at the forefront of their
organisation’s interaction with the environment would lead the organisation to fitness
peaks where the organisation’s unique capabilities can best be used in a competitive
market.
This aspect would be particularly relevant for most service industries too.
Other aspects of complex adaptive systems should also hold particular relevance for
service industries. In particular, the ability to understand behaviour and consider
behaviour in a non-linear fashion should appeal to service organisations. Service
organisations are inherently non-linear and exhibit non-linear behaviour. Their
external environments would also be particularly difficult to predict and would require
the organisation to have very rapid adaptive abilities to meet changing consumer
demands. Agent interaction, communication, and emergent behaviours would provide
a way of adding meaning to organisational behaviours required to ensure the ongoing
success of the organisation. If one was to consider a company in the travel or
entertainment industry one could imagine how rapidly an external environment could
change and how responsive the company would need to be to remain in business.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
145
_____________________________________________________________________
In any private sector company that is disposed to strategic planning the
concept of path-dependence may also be relevant. Although the concept of pathdependence, where taking one particular course of action often precludes taking
others, appears self-evident, highlighting this in an organisation challenges it to
consider the possible opportunity costs of its chosen strategy. For example
investment companies, faced with numerous investments would only be able to
choose some and forego the opportunity to pursue the others.
Similar to the Air Force, complex adaptive systems thinking could be
incorporated at the senior management level in the private sector. Various
professional development programs for senior managers could easily adopt this type
of training. As suggested by McNiff et.al. (2000) organisations should take on the
responsibility for the ongoing education of their members, by helping participants to
learn how to learn, to work towards autonomy, and to challenge structures and
processes that aim to close down opportunities for learning and growth (McNiff et al.,
2000).
Previous research reviewed in Chapter 2 revealed that there appear to be no
other tools based on complex adaptive systems in the business sector that are used by
either consultants or by senior managers to improve organisational understanding.
Bearing that in mind, and also acknowledging the challenge of understanding
complex adaptive systems, Doolittle’s model and my action research focus group
workshop tool would offer one method of introducing the concepts.
The use of action research to assist private sector senior manager’s
understanding of complex adaptive systems and use its concepts within their
organisations is valuable and appropriate. Action research’s philosophy of ‘learning
by doing’ is similar to complex adaptive system’s experimenting at the edge. It must
be noted however, that both the development of an understanding of complex adaptive
systems and the use of action research tool takes time. Having said that, the time
tends to permit a deeper and more profound understanding of complex adaptive
systems and its use as a generative metaphor in organisational understanding.
There are many opportunities for organisations in the private sector to become
more open and aware of their external environments through the proliferation in the
use of the internet, e-mail, mobile phone technologies (including SMS text
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
146
_____________________________________________________________________
messaging), and a generally larger number of avenues available to people to interact
more widely. These technologies lend themselves to many aspects of complex
adaptive systems, particularly agent interaction. The way people now work in private
sector organisations is changing dramatically and the concepts of complex adaptive
systems can assist them in understanding why these changes are taking place and the
part they play in them.
In summary, it can be seen that the use of complex adaptive systems as a
metaphor for understanding organisational behaviour is applicable for private sector
organisations. This section focussed on two aspects of private sector organisations.
Firstly it considered particular industries that lend themselves to better understanding
through using aspects of complex adaptive systems behaviour. Secondly, it
considered the professional development of managers using action research
techniques.
Public sector policy analysts and managers
This section discusses the applicability of using complex adaptive systems as a
metaphor for organisational understanding to public sector policy analysts and
managers and the applicability of using the action research focus group workshop to
do this. The points already raised in the previous two sections of this chapter are also
relevant to public sector policy analysts and managers but will not be repeated here.
The nature of public sector organisations is different to that of the private
sector in a number of different ways. On one dimension, the bottom line is often
more difficult to ascertain as there is often not the financial element that can reveal
success or otherwise. Qualitative measures of success are often used and this is where
aspects of complex adaptive systems thinking may assist public sector policy analysts
and managers. Whereas some private sector organisations are starting to use the triple
bottom line in assessing their performance there is also significant scope for this
within the public sector. The triple bottom line of economic, social and
environmental achievement is forcing organisations to look beyond their immediate
boundaries and into domains where they have less experience. Engagement with
social and environmental stakeholders requires greater interaction with the external
environment and external agents. The requirement for organisations and communities
to learn together is consistent with action research’s ‘learning by doing’ philosophy.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
147
_____________________________________________________________________
Public sector organisations could conduct focus group workshops with external
stakeholders, using the concepts of complex adaptive systems to understand what
changes may need to be made to ensure a sustainable future.
As mentioned in the section on both Air Force and private sector managers,
the challenge in introducing complex adaptive systems thinking into organisations in
times of crisis, or high organisational tempo, is that it is likely to frustrate senior
managers who will instead tend to rely on extant policy and doctrine that may be
unsuited for new or evolving situations. Particularly in the public sector,
organisations will often be responsible for rolling out policy programs that affect
many different organisations. The concept of counterintuitiveness is important here in
that what works in one organisation may not work in another organisation. There may
be scope for these public sector organisations to experiment more with different ways
to achieve similar results and thereby achieve policy objectives.
Writing policy that encourages the use of the complex adaptive systems
metaphor and encourages the use of action research should be encouraged in public
sector organisations. Structures and practices in the public sector that no longer meet
the needs of the community, or indeed their employees, should be questioned and
revised to ensure they remain relevant for their changed environments and the
expectations of their employees.
In summary, this section has suggested that public sector policy analysts and
managers can use complex adaptive systems as a metaphor for understanding
organisational behaviour and can also use the focus group workshop tool, particularly
in engaging with external stakeholders. The model and tool would assist public sector
organisations achieve their required triple bottom line reporting.
Limitations
This section of the chapter will discuss the limitations of my research and its
results. It will revisit those limitations already identified in Chapters 1 and 3 with the
benefit of hindsight and add those that became apparent during the course of the
research. Limitations in using complex adaptive systems as a metaphor for
organisational understanding and in using action research as a research methodology
will also be discussed.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
148
_____________________________________________________________________
The original limitations identified in Chapter 1 included the fact that only one
organisation was being studied; the Air Force. The period of study was only over a
short period of time, and only a small number of qualified staff were involved in the
research. Nothing that was raised during the course of my research changed this
limitation: suffice it to say that focus group workshop participants did not raise any
Air Force specific issues that they considered would be barriers to use in other
organisations. The length of the period of study could not be avoided as mentioned in
Chapter 1. In terms of the third limitation, the model and tool would need to be tested
on groups that were not as experienced in organisational management consulting to
determine if they understood the meaning of the metaphor and could apply it to their
work within their organisations. The limitation of personal bias was raised in Chapter
3 as were the steps put in place to reduce the risk of this occurring. My view is that
the risk of personal bias was reduced as much as possible given the nature of the
action research methodology.
As was discovered over the period of the research, it takes time to understand
the concepts of complex adaptive systems. The capacity for people to develop even a
basic understanding of complex adaptive systems, let alone determine how they might
apply the concepts in their organisation over a three hour workshop is challenging.
This was evident even for highly qualified and experienced organisational
practitioners. This is probably the major limitation of this research and the model and
tool developed. Further, if one accepts that that cause and effect are often distant in
time and space then it will be difficult to prove that implementing the complex
adaptive systems model and the focus group workshop tool makes a difference,
particularly over the short term.
In terms of generalising my research to other organisations, focus group
workshop participants raised the question of what would happen in organisations
where there was limited, or no, opportunity for agent interaction. This was partly
answered by other members of the workshop, in that where there was limited
interaction the processes of model and schema development would still occur albeit
more slowly. Where it was considered that there was no interaction it was doubted
whether this would meet the definition of an organisation. One example may be a call
centre organisation where the majority of the members of the organisation spend their
time on the phone to customers. The view of focus group participants was that agent
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
149
_____________________________________________________________________
interaction would still occur during meal breaks etc and that this would still allow
processes to take place.
Additional to the generalisation issue is whether the size of the client
organisation and the number of levels within it is relevant for my research. This was
seen as being a relevant factor in Doolittle’s fourth concept of internal models and
schemas being actively constructed, self-organised and emergent. Certainly the
results of my research were based on the views of internal management consultants
working in a large organisation. It is a limitation of my research that my results can
only be generalised to organisations of similar size and structure.
The final limitation discussed in Chapter 3 was one of researcher bias in the
facilitation of the focus group workshop and also in the process of interpretation of
results. These issues were addressed in Chapter 3 and the measures put in place to
reduce the impact of both was considered successful.
In conclusion, this section has shown that my original limitations identified in
Chapters 1 and 3 were reconsidered, as were some other limitations that became
apparent during the course of the research. These included understanding complex
material in a short period of time, measurement of the success of implementation, and
the applicability of the material to organisations of different size and type.
Further Research
This final section of the chapter will outline further research that may prove
useful both in terms of the use of complex adaptive systems as a metaphor to assist
organisational understanding and to the use of action research as a research
methodology. The section will also revisit some of limitations mentioned in the
previous section as perhaps areas where further research might prove fruitful. These
may include a wider time frame for a study, the use of different organisations, and the
use of a target group other than management consultants.
A longer time frame for the study of the usefulness of complex adaptive
systems and actions research would be valuable and may be undertaken by this
researcher in the future. Further, to change the breadth of the scope of the research
from one workshop for six groups of people to six workshops for the same group of
people but over a longer time period. As it was the former approach was considered
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
150
_____________________________________________________________________
more useful in this initial research to determine wider acceptance than would be
permitted if only one group was used.
Extending the focus group workshop to a wider audience within Air Force
could also be considered and this would provide the opportunity to gain feedback
from participants not so familiar with organisational consulting. Whereas my
thoughts are that this would be more challenging, in fact people with less knowledge
of organisations may be better placed to adopt the thinking required for complex
adaptive systems. The extension of conducting the focus group workshops to other
groups in the Air Force would be to conduct the focus group workshops for non Air
Force management consultants, or for other organisations.
Conducting a focus group workshop in an organisation outside the Air Force,
where there is no power differential between the researcher and the focus group
participants, would offer a wider perspective on the tool’s utility and also circumvent
the question of ethical considerations and robustness of the research outcomes where
a power differential exists.
Returning to Chapter 2, there may be scope to attempt some modelling of
complex adaptive systems behaviour in the Air Force. This could be achieved
through the experimentation program that was mentioned earlier in the chapter.
Applying modelling to aspects of the Air Force organisation, such as incomplete
knowledge or delayed information, to see if actual results include evolutionary
patterns like fixed points, oscillations, or chaos (Mainzer, 1994) could be attempted.
If the prevention of the development of organisational understanding strategies results
then MSA consultants may be able to introduce strategies to minimise these
information delays or instances of incomplete knowledge.
More distantly related to this research might be an investigation into the
apparent sensitivity shown by some participants, particularly more senior leaders, to
the terminology used in complex adaptive systems. The results may prove interesting
from a Air Force perspective but may not add much to the use of complex adaptive
systems as a metaphor for understanding organisational behaviour.
In conclusion, further research is required in the area of using complex
adaptive systems as a metaphor for increasing organisational understanding, and
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
151
_____________________________________________________________________
action research as a tool for use across organisations of different size, purpose and
structure.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
152
_____________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES
1999. RAAF Cultural Assessment Project (RAAFCAP) Current Assessment Report.
Canberra: Royal Australian Air Force.
2002. ADDP-D.3 Future Warfighting Concept. Canberra: Department of Defence.
Governance through metaphor projects - Notes and Commentaries;
http://www.uia.be/metaphor/metacom_bodies.php?kap=5; 28 Sep 04, 2004.
AerospaceCentre. 2002. Fundamentals of Australian Aerospace Power (Fourth ed.).
Canberra: Department of Defnce.
Axelrod, R. 1997. The Complexity of Cooperation - Agent-Based Models of
Competition and Colaboration. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Barrett, F. J. & Cooperrider, D. L.; Generative Metaphor Intervention: A new
approach to working with systems divided by conflict and caught in defensive
perception; http://www.stipes.com/aichap7.htm; 28 September 2004, 2004.
Beaumont, R. 1994. War, Chaos, and History. Westport: Praeger.
Bergmann Lichtenstein, B. M. 2000a. Generative knowledge and self-organized
learning: Reflecting on Don Schon's research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(1):
47 -54.
Bergmann Lichtenstein, B. M. 2000b. Self-organized transitions: A pattern amid the
chaos of transformative change. The Academy of Management, 14(4): 128 - 141.
Beyerchen, A. D. 1992. Clausewitz, Nonlinearity and the Unpredictability of War.
International Security, 17(3): 59-90.
Brodnick, R. J. & Krafft, L. J. 1997. Chaos and complexity theory: Implications for
research and planning in higher education. Paper presented at the 37th Annual Forum
of the Association for Institutional Research.
Capra, F. 1997. The Web of Life - A new synthesis of mind and matter. London:
Flamingo.
Clausewitz, C. 1976. On War (M. Howard & P. Paret, Trans.). Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Czerwinski, T. 1998. Coping with the Bounds: Speculations on Nonlinearity in
Military Affairs. Washington D.C.: DoD Command and Control Research Program National Defense University.
Dick, B.; You want to do an action research thesis? - How to conduct and report
action research (including a beginner's guide to the literature);
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/art/arthesis.html; 28 January 2003, 2003.
Dick, B.; Convergent interviewing: a technique for qualitative data collection;
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/iview.html; 26 January, 2003.
Dick, B.; Structured focus groups;
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/focus.html; 29 January, 2003.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
153
_____________________________________________________________________
Dick, B. & Dalmau, T. 1999. Values in action: applying the ideas of Argyris and
Schon (2nd ed.): Chapel Hill, Qld.
Doolittle, P. E.; Complex Constructivism: A Theoretical Model of Complexity and
Cognition; http://www.tandl.vt.edu/doolittle/research.complex1.html; 17 May 2002.
Fox, C. & Trinca, H. 2001. The Big Idea. Financial Review Boss Magazine, 2(7): 3235.
Gell-Mann, M. 1994. The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the
Complex. Great Britain: Little, Brown and Company.
Gharajedaghi, J. 1999. Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity. Boston:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Gharajedaghi, J. & Ackoff, R. L.; Mechanisms, Organisms and Social Systems';
http://interactdesign.com/mechanisms.html; 17 September 2001.
Glover, J., Friedman, H., & Jones, G. 2002a. Adaptive Leadership: When Change is
Not Enough. Unpublished Paper.
Glover, J., Friedman, H., & Jones, G. 2002b. Four Principles for Being Adaptive.
unpublished.
Gregoire, N. & Prigogine, I. 1989. Exploring Complexity: an introduction. New York:
W.H. Freeman and Company.
Hase, S. & Brodnick, R. J. 2001. Complex Constructivism and the Sensibility of
Mixed Mode Action Research in Education. unpublished.
Houston, A. 2003. Culture Capability and Concepts: CAF Symposium Keynote
Speech.
James, D. 2001. From Geezers to Geeks'. Management Today(September): 3.
Jensen, H. J. 1998. Self-Organized Criticality: Emergent Complex Behavior in
Physical and Biological Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kauffman, S. A. 1992. Origins of Order in Evolution: Self-Organization and
Selection. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kiehne, T. P.; Frame-Restucturing as a Value-Critical approach to information
policy.; https://webspace.utexas.edu/kiehnetp/www/policy_schon.html; 28 September
2004, 2004.
Klein, G. 1989. Strategies of Decision Making. Military Review(May): 56 - 64.
Leddick, S.; Study Guide for: Systems Thinking Managing Chaos and Complexity;
http://www.interactdesign.com/studyg.html; 17 September, 2001.
Lissack, M. R.; Chaos and Complexity - What does that have to do with management?
A look at practical applications; http://lissack.com/writings/chaos.htm; 17 September,
2001.
Mainzer, K. 1994. Thinking in Complexity : The Complex Dynamics of Matter,
Mind, and Mankind. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Malone, T. W. & Laubacher, R. J. 1998. The Dawn of the E-Lance Economy.
Harvard Business Review(Sep - Oct): 145-152.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
154
_____________________________________________________________________
Mathews, M. K., White, M. C., & Long, R. G. 1999. The problem of prediction and
control in theoretical diversity and the promise of the complexity sciences. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 8(1): 17-31.
McLennan, P. 2002. Planning for Uncertainty. Aerogram, 3/2002.
McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. 2000. Action Research in Organisations. London:
Routledge.
Morgan, G. 1997. Images of Organization. Thousand Oakes: Sage Publications.
Pascale, R. T. 1999. Surfing the Edge of Chaos. MITSloan Management Review,
40(3).
Perry, C.; A structured approach to presenting theses: notes for students and their
supervisors; http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/art/cperry.html; 28 April 2003,
2003.
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. 2001. Studying organizational
change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management
Journal, 44(4): 697 - 713.
Pina e Cunha, M., Vieira da Cunha, J., & Kamoche, K. 2001. The age of emergence:
Toward a new organisational mindset. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 66(3):
25-29.
Robbins, S. & Mukerji, D. 1994. Managing Organisations: New Challenges and
Perspectives (Second ed.). Sydney: Prentice Hall.
Roth, B.; Review of Jamshid Gharajedaghi's Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and
Complexity: A Platform for Designing Business Architecture;
http://www.interactdesign.com/bookreview.html; 17 September, 2001.
Sankaran, S.; Methodology for an organisational action research thesis;
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-ssandkaran01.html; 29 November 2002,
2002.
Schon, D. A. 1993. Generative Metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social
policy. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought 2nd Ed, 2nd ed.: 137 - 163.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Snowden, D., J. 2002. Complex Acts of Knowing: Paradox and Descriptive Selfawareness. Journal of Knowledge Management, Special Edition.
Snowden, D., J. 2005. Multi-ontology sense making a new simplicity in decision
making. Management Today, Yearbook 2005.
Stace, D. & Dunphy, D. 2001. Beyond the Boundaries: Leading and recreating the
successful enterprise (2nd ed.). Sydney: McGraw Hill.
Stacey, R. D. 1992. Managing the Unknowable: Strategic Boundaries Between Order
and Chaos in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Stacey, R. D. 2000. Strategic Management & Organisational Dynamics: The
Challenge of Complexity (Third ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Stacey, R. D.; Ralph Stacey's Agreement and Certainty Matrix;
www.plexusinstitute.org/edgeware/archive/think/main_aides3.html; 1 March, 2005.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
155
_____________________________________________________________________
Stacey, R. D. 2003. Organizations as complex responsive processes of relating.
Journal of Innovation Management(Winter 2002/2003).
Sterman, J. D. 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a
Complex World. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Sterman, J. D. 2001. System dynamics modeling: Tools for learning in a complex
world. California Management Review, 43(4): 8-25.
Stocker, R., Jelnick, H., Durnota, B., & Bossomaier, T. 1996. Complex Systems:
From Local Interactions to Global Phenomena. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Stonier, R. J. & Yu, X. H. 1994. Complex Systems: Mechanism of Adaptation.
Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Tankey, C. 2001. Feedback on Research Blueprint. In C. Brown (Ed.). Adelaide.
Team, R. P. 1999. RAAF Cultural Assessment Project (RAAFCAP) Current
Assessment Report. Canberra: Royal Australian Air Force.
Waldrop, M. M. 1992. Complexity - The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and
Chaos. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Wheatley, M. J. 1999. Leadership and the New Science (2nd ed.). San Francisco:
Berrett-Koelner.
Wolfram, S. 2002. A New Kind of Science (1st ed.): Wolfram Media Inc.
Wollin, D. & Perry, C. 2002. Marketing management in a complex adaptive system:
an initial framwork, work in progress - unpublished. Coolangatta.
Yin, R. K. 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park:
Sage Publications Inc.
Zikmund, W. G. 2000. Business Research Methods (6th ed.). Florida: Dryden Press.
Zimmerman, B., Lindberg, C., & Plsek, P.; Edgeware: Lessons From Complexity
Science for Health Care Leaders; www.plexusinstitute.com; 10 July, 2003.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. 1991. Action Learning for Improved Performance: Key
contributions to the First World Congress on Action Research and Process
Management. Brisbane: AEBIS Publishing.
Zurek, W. H. 1990. Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information. Redwood
City: Addison-Wesley.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
156
Appendix A
Interview Protocol
TAPE RECORDER
TAPES (SPARE)
SPARE BATTERIES
BUSINESS CARDS
RECORD DATE, PLACE, AND TIME OF INTERVIEW
LEAVE COVER TO TAPE PLAYER OPEN
INTERVIEW PREAMBLE
GOOD MORNING/AFTERNOON,
THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING ME IN THIS RESEARCH.
THIS RESEARCH HAS BE SPONSORED BY DGPP-AF AND IS PART OF A
DOCTORATE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION I AM STUDYING
I WILL NOW READ A STANDARD PREAMBLE TO MY QUESTIONS THAT
IS A STANDARD STATEMENT FOR ALL THE PEOPLE I WILL BE
INTERVIEWING
I AM RESEARCHING ASPECTS OF WHAT IS CALLED “COMPLEXITY
THEORY” OR THE BEHAVIOUR OF WHAT ARE CALLED “COMPLEX
ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS” TO SEE IF THERE IS VALUE THAT CAN BE ADDED
TO AIR FORCE DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES, AND IN PARTICULAR
COMMITTEE DECISION-MAKING/DISCUSSION PROCESSES
PLEASE DON’T CONCERN YOURSELF TOO MUCH WITH WHAT
COMPLEXITY THEORY IS BUT KNOW THAT, IN BRIEF, THE ASPECTS OF
COMPLEXITY THEORY I AM RESEARCHING ARE ABOUT ISSUES SUCH
AS “GUT FEEL”, INTUITION, ‘KNOWING’ BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE,
ETC.
I HAVE SOUGHT YOUR RESPONSES AND VIEWS BECAUSE YOU ARE A
MEMBER OF SOME OF THESE COMMITTEES AND A SENIOR AIR
FORCE LEADER
I STATE UP FRONT THAT I AM NOT CRITICAL OF ANY CURRENT
DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES AND SECONDLY THAT I AM NOT
QUESTIONING ANY PARTICULAR DECISION THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN BY
AN INDIVIDUAL OR COMMITTEE IN THE PAST
CONFIDENTIALITY
I WILL NOT BE SHARING YOUR RESPONSES TO MY QUESTIONS WITH
ANYONE ELSE OR ATTRIBUTING WHAT YOU SAY TO YOU AS AN
INDIVIDUAL. AT MOST COMMENTS WILL BE ATTRIBUTED TO “MEMBER
OF CAFAC” FOR EXAMPLE
DO YOU MIND IF I TAPE THE INTERVIEW? – BEFORE YOU ANSWER,
THE TAPE WILL BE FOR MY USE ONLY, I WILL NOT USE YOUR NAME
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
A-2
_____________________________________________________________________
ON THE TAPE AND WILL SCRUB THE TAPE ONCE I HAVE COMPLETED
MY RESEARCH, IT IS JUST THAT I CAN’T WRITE QUICK ENOUGH TO
RECORD ALL YOUR RESPONSES
YES/NO?
IN ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS PLEASE THINK ABOUT YOUR ROLE IN
VARIOUS DECISION-MAKING COMMITTEES IE CAFAC, AFCMB, AFCC
ETC.
FURTHER, TRY TO THINK ABOUT YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION AND
YOUR THINKING PROCESS ABOUT THE DECISIONS RATHER THAN THE
PRESENTATIONS PROVIDED TO THE COMMITTEE OR THE WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS
YOU WILL PROBABLY FIND THE QUESTIONS QUITE EASY TO
UNDERSTAND BUT MORE CHALLENGING TO ANSWER – WHAT I AM
ASKING MIGHT SEEM SELF-EVIDENT OR EVEN ASSUMED – PLEASE
CONCENTRATE YOUR THINKING ON HOW TO EXPLAIN THESE
PERHAPS BASIC THINGS.
THE INTERVIEW COVERS SIX GENERAL AREAS MADE UP OF A
NUMBER OF QUESTIONS. THE QUESTIONS MAY SEEM THE SAME OR
CLOSELY RELATED.
I WILL ASK IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS A THE END
THE INTERVIEW SHOULD TAKE ABOUT 50 MINUTES APPROXIMATELY
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE COMMENCE?
1. COMPLEX SYSTEMS ARE NON-LINEAR, OPEN, AND FAR FROM EQUILIBRIUM.
DO YOU THINK THAT THE RAAF WILL CONTINUE TO DEVELOP MUCH THE SAME AS IT
HAS IN THE PAST? WHY?
DO YOU THINK THAT THE RAAF, AS AN ORGANISATION IS STABLE?
WHY?
DO YOU THINK THAT THE RAAF NEEDS TO CONSIDER ITS EXTERNAL
ENVIRONMENT? WHY?
HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN SOMETHING IS WRONG IN AN
ORGANISATION AND ACTION NEEDS TO BE TAKEN? (BIFURCATION
POINT)
IN TERMS OF THE DECISIONS THAT NEED TO MAKE AT CAFAC, DO
YOU THINK THAT ANY OF WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DISCUSSED SHOULD
BE DISCUSSED BY CAFAC MEMBERS?
2. COMPLEX SYSTEM BEHAVIOUR INVOLVES ADAPTATION TO THE ENVIRONMENT,
BASED ON EXPERIENCE.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
A-3
_____________________________________________________________________
DO YOU THINK THAT THE RAAF HAS CHANGED HOW IT DOES THINGS
BASED ON ITS EXPERIENCE OF WORKING WITH THE EXTERNAL
ENVIRONMENT? IN WHAT WAYS?
DOES THE AIR FORCE KEEP COMING BACK TO CONFIGURATIONS
THAT SEEM TO WORK BUT ONLY SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT?
(REINVENTING THE WHEEL (FRACTALS)?)
DO YOU THINK IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE AIR FORCE TO FORECAST
WHAT ITS NEEDS IN TOTAL AND FOR THE LONG TERM?
IN TERMS OF THE DECISIONS THAT NEED TO MAKE AT CAFAC, DO
YOU THINK THAT ANY OF WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DISCUSSED SHOULD
BE DISCUSSED BY CAFAC MEMBERS?
3. COMPLEX SYSTEM BEHAVIOUR IS A FUNCTION OF INTERNAL MODELS OR
SCHEMAS THAT ARE THE RESULT OF PERCEIVED REGULARITIES IN
EXPERIENCE.
DO YOU THINK THAT THE WAYS IN WHICH THE RAAF DEALS WITH
THINGS IS BASED ON OUR PAST EXPERIENCE? IN WHAT WAY?
DO YOU THINK THAT RAAF RESPONDS TO CHANGES IN THE
EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT NOW BASED ON HOW IT HAS RESPONDED
TO CHANGES IN THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT IN THE PAST?
DO YOU THINK THAT THE WAY THE RAAF DEALS WITH DECISIONS IS
BASED ON OUR SHARED UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THINGS ‘SHOULD’
BE DONE? IN WHAT WAY?
IN TERMS OF THE DECISIONS THAT NEED TO MAKE AT CAFAC, DO
YOU THINK THAT ANY OF WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DISCUSSED SHOULD
BE DISCUSSED BY CAFAC MEMBERS?
4. EMERGENT GLOBAL COMPLEX SYSTEM BEHAVIOUR INVOLVES THE
AGGREGATE BEHAVIOUR OF AGENTS.
DO YOU THINK THAT DIFFERENT GROUPS WITHIN THE RAAF BEHAVE
IN DIFFERENT WAYS? CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME EXAMPLES?
DO YOU THINK THAT THERE IS A GENERAL WAY THAT THE ENTIRE
RAAF BEHAVES AS A GROUP?
IN TERMS OF THE DECISIONS THAT NEED TO MAKE AT CAFAC, DO
YOU THINK THAT ANY OF WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DISCUSSED SHOULD
BE DISCUSSED BY CAFAC MEMBERS?
5. INTERNAL MODELS AND SCHEMAS ARE ACTIVELY CONSTRUCTED, SELFORGANISED AND EMERGENT.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
A-4
_____________________________________________________________________
DO YOU THINK THAT THE WAY THE AIR FORCE DOES THINGS
INTERNALLY IS CHANGING AND BECOMING DIFFERENT AS A RESULT
OF OUR PEOPLE AND THE WAY THEY WORK TOGETHER IN
RESPONSE TO DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTS?
DO YOU THINK THAT THESE WAYS OF DOING THINGS HAS CHANGED
OVER TIME AND IF SO, WHY?
HAVE SOME INITIATIVES OR CHANGES IN AIR FORCE BEEN
UNSPECTACULAR IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BUT REAPED REWARDS IN
THE LONGER TERM? (CAUSE AND EFFECT NOT CLOSELY RELATED IN
TIME AND SPACE IE F111)
IN YOUR VIEW, HAVE SOME SMALL CHANGE HAD MASSIVE RESULTS
AND SOME BIG CHANGES HAD INSIGNIFICANT RESULTS?
IN TERMS OF THE DECISIONS THAT NEED TO MAKE AT CAFAC, DO
YOU THINK THAT ANY OF WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DISCUSSED SHOULD
BE DISCUSSED BY CAFAC MEMBERS?
6.
INTERNAL MODELS AND SCHEMAS ARE A FUNCTION OF BOTH AGENT
INTERACTION AND EXISTING INTERNAL MODELS AND SCHEMAS.
DO YOU THINK THAT THE SHARED BACKGROUND MEMBERS OF
CAFAC HAVE MEANS THEY HAVE A PARTICULAR WAY OF THINKING
ABOUT DECISIONS? I WHAT WAY?
DO AIR FORCE PEOPLE DO THINGS AS A FUNCTION OF THEIR
INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER AIR FORCE PEOPLE OR BECAUSE THERE
IS AN AIR FORCE “WAY” (‘RULES OF BEHAVIOUR’)
HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED SOME THINGS WORKING IN SOME PARTS
OF THE AIR FORCE THAT DON’T WORK IN OTHER PARTS OF THE AIR
FORCE?
IN TERMS OF THE DECISIONS THAT NEED TO MAKE AT CAFAC, DO
YOU THINK THAT ANY OF WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DISCUSSED SHOULD
BE DISCUSSED BY CAFAC MEMBERS?
7.
OTHER – DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE PREVIOUS
QUESTIONS?
IS THERE ANYTHING YOU THINK THAT I SHOULD HAVE ASKED BUT I
HAVEN’T?
8. THE SECOND PART TO ALL MY QUESTIONS RELATED TO
COMMITTEE PROCESSES. WHAT DID YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?
WOULD YOU BE HAPPY TO TRIAL SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
A-5
_____________________________________________________________________
CLOSURE
THAT CONCLUDES THE INTERVIEW
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALLOWING ME TO INTERVIEW YOU.
I WILL LEAVE A COPY OF MY BUSINESS CARD IN CASE YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS FOR ME ONCE I AM GONE
********************************************
FOR AVM X:
WHAT DID YOU THINK OF;
MY E-MAIL APPROACH?
MY PREAMBLE?
QUESTION 1 READ QUESTION
QUESTION 2 ETC
THE PART OF THE QUESTION THAT RELATES TO COMMITTEE
PROCESSES
HOW DO YOU THINK THESE QUESTIONS WILL GO ACROSS WITH CAF,
DCAF, ACAUST, BIS, DGPP-AF, DGPERS-AF, COMTRG-AF, COMDT
ADFA, DGAD, ASRP-AF, DGTA, WOFF RAAF?
"Brodnick and Krafft (1997, p 10-13) provide a similar series of eight useful
postulates, derived from Complexity Theory and relevant to organisational
contexts. These are that:
1. All institutions are potentially chaotic;
2. Institutions are attracted to identifiable configurations;
3. Institutions move among dynamic states through a process of bifurcation;
4. The geometry of institutional attraction tends to be fractal in nature;
5. Functionally accurate forecasting is impossible on a broad scale and for the
long term;
6. Cause and effect are not closely related in time and space
7. Massive interventions may have insignificant results and small interventions
may have massive results;
8. Similar actions taken by institutions will never lead to the same result.
NOTES - Draft e-mail from DGPP-AF requestion interviews with relevant
parties
Recent CAFAC decisions as prompts?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
Appendix B
Focus Group Workshop Tool
These presentation notes accompany the Appendix C slides. The facilitator needs to
set aside about three hours to conduct the focus group workshop. A computer and
data projector are required to project the slides onto a projections screen, and butchers
paper and an easel are required to note participant comments.
Slide 1 – Thank the group for attending and participating in the Focus Group
Workshop.
Slide 2 – Provide an outline of the three parts to the Focus Group Workshop as
explaining what you think complexity theory is, explaining the six attributes of
complexity theory, and reflecting on the workshop content and process. Also
mention that you will provide a handout in order to assist their thinking.
Slide 3 – Provide a background to the reason for the workshop. In my case, the fact
that I am enrolled in a DBA program, that I became interested in the topic through
Rod Anderson’s workshops, and my belief that the material can assist in our work. I
mentioned that I was using action research methodology and my research was of
interest to my organisation for the future. My research is also sponsored by senior Air
Force officers. I also mention who will have access to my research results and thesis
(including workshop participants). I also mention that simple systems are inputprocess-output based.
Slide 4 – On this slide explain why they are the sample group for my research,
expertise in management consulting and access to six groups. I also explain, because
I am their boss, that it is acceptable for them to disagree with me. I also mention that
this is a challenge from a methodological point of view and what I have done to
reduce the problem (member from first cycle sitting in on last cycle). I also make the
disclaimer that my comments about Complexity Theory are my views only. I tell
them that I will take notes throughout the focus group workshop to assist me with
collating their comments and that everyone will have the opportunity to contribute
and/or express an opinion.
Slide 5 – I use this opportunity to tell participants what is in their participation for
them. This includes and exposure to complexity theory, and the action research
methodology. I mention that they may gain insight into how organisations behave
that they can use in their work with clients. I also mention that it may provide an
explanation for some of their past experiences of working in organisations and that it
may assist them in understanding the Air Force’s response to the external
environment. At this stage I ask if they have any questions before moving on to the
next section.
Slide 6 – This is a summary slide where a revise what I have just taken the group
through and ask again if they have any questions.
Slide 7 – I firstly acknowledge that the material on this slide, and the next two are
from Rod Anderson’s presentation. I mention that most of the current research is
from North America. I also explain what I think a simple system is, as opposed to
complex systems. I also mention what the alternatives are to complexity theory,
particularly with respect of current management theories. I mention that these
theories are all largely based on our Newtonian understanding of systems and how we
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
B-2
_____________________________________________________________________
learn to understand activity. I mention the multi-disciplinary nature of complexity
theory and provide a definition of what constitutes a complex system. I also state that
complexity theory is not particularly new but that it does required a new way of
thinking about things.
Slide 8 –I mention that this is what many of us are used to in understanding
organisational structures and how organisations are supposed to behave with, for
example one manager only interacting with their relevant director.
Slide 9 - I mention that this is probably a more accurate reflection of what happens
and how people interact in organisations, where ‘d’ and ‘s’ are two people who
interact with others such that many combinations of what ‘d’ and ‘s’ have input occur
over the organisation.
Slide 10 - I acknowledge that the statements are those that Rod Anderson has pulled
from relevant literature on complexity theory and that they may recall them from the
Senior Executive Seminars that they may have attended. I also suggest that they may
have covered some aspects of systems approaches to organisational understanding
either in their qualifying training for the Management Services Agency or in
subsequent MBA studies.
Slide 11 – I ensure that I give the participants time to read all the statements.
Slide 12 – I give participants time to read the statements and then mention that
complex organisations do these things. I ask participants to think about the way the
Air Force has dealt with major change in the past ie changes to the superannuation
scheme, to OH&S requirements etc. I ask the participants to think of the organisation,
as it was when they joined it, often many years ago, and think of how some of the
internal models (and people’s attitudes) have changed over this time ie. attitude to the
employment of women, attitudes to diversity in the workplace, financial
accountability etc. I then ask them if they have any questions on this section.
Slide 13 – This is a summary slide for the first section. I mention the points on the
slide and seek any clarifying questions. I then prime participants for the next section
(Part 2) mentioning that we are about to work through six attributes of complexity
theory in turn. I explain why there are only six attributes and not more ie. Distilled
from the relevant literature. I tell them that for each attribute I will be asking them to
firstly consider its use in thinking about organisations in general, and secondly for use
in thinking about the Management Service Agency.
Slide 14 – I ensure I give the group time to read the attribute a couple of times before
speaking. I then tell the group that I will first explain the attribute, then take questions
on my explanation, then invite individual comment before moving on to group
discussion. I explain the term non-linear as events and changes in organisations not
occurring in a linear fashion and that much is happening everywhere at the same time.
Organisational behaviours are unpredictable and potentially chaotic and we cannot
understand on organisation by merely analysing its various components. Things don’t
happen in consecutive steps or straight lines in real life – much is happening in all
directions all of the time. I state that open means that organisations and people within
them interact with their external environments. I explain far from equilibrium as an
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
B-3
_____________________________________________________________________
organisation not being stable, which is a good thing. Stable organisations are in a
state of entropy (dying) because they are not adapting to their external environments.
I also explain this in terms of how we plan in the Air Force. I then ask them, during
open discussion how this helps them in understanding organisations at a general level
and secondly, how this helps then understand the Air Force or the Management
Services organisation better. Comments are recorded on butchers paper so that
participants can see what is written. They are invited to correct any mistakes or
misrepresentations I many make.
Slide 15 – I ensure I give the group time to read the attribute a couple of times before
speaking. I then explain the term adaptation by asking if events in the environment
force the organisation to react or does it ignore them? I also explain experience as
organisational reactions being based on the collective experience of people within that
organisation ie. How it may have adapted or reacted in the past. I ask the participants
if they think the Air Force values experience (corporate knowledge). I mention that in
complexity theory, organisations are attracted to identifiable configurations.
Organisations also change through a process of bifurcation. I then seek comments
from the group. I then ask them, during open discussion how this helps them in
understanding organisations at a general level and secondly, how this helps then
understand the Air Force or the Management Services organisation better. Comments
are recorded on butchers paper so that participants can see what is written. They are
invited to correct any mistakes or misrepresentations I many make.
Slide 16 – I ensure I give the group time to read the attribute a couple of times before
speaking. I then explain the phrase internal models or schemas by asking, do you
think that organisations have particular ways of seeing things and then dealing with
these things? Ie a standard way of responding to events? Is there a ‘way things are
done around here’? I explain the phrase perceived regularities in experience by
asking, do organisations, when confronted with something new, look to the past to see
if this has happened before, and then do something similar? I also ask, do
organisations use models that are based on regular experiences, for example the
experience of conducting operations? I then ask them, during open discussion how
this helps them in understanding organisations at a general level and secondly, how
this helps then understand the Air Force or the Management Services organisation
better. Comments are recorded on butchers paper so that participants can see what is
written. They are invited to correct any mistakes or misrepresentations I many make.
Slide 17 – I ensure I give the group time to read the attribute a couple of times before
speaking. I then explain the term emergent as, what seems to come out at the end of
the day at the higher level. I explain the phrase aggregate behaviour of agents as,
agents are parts of an organisation – either people or sections depending on what level
you are discussing. They can be just individuals within an organisation. The
behaviour of the organisation is not a function of a person acting alone but an
aggregate of the behaviour of a number of people. Each person may have a slightly
different perspective on the problem or issue. I also mention here that this may be a
case of the outcome being greater than the sum of the parts. I then ask them, during
open discussion how this helps them in understanding organisations at a general level
and secondly, how this helps then understand the Air Force or the Management
Services organisation better. Comments are recorded on butchers paper so that
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
B-4
_____________________________________________________________________
participants can see what is written. They are invited to correct any mistakes or
misrepresentations I many make.
Slide 18 – I ensure I give the group time to read the attribute a couple of times before
speaking. I then explain the phrase models and schemas as a standard way of
responding to events or the way things are done around here. The phrase actively
constructed is explained through mentioning that the models and schemas are not
static but change slightly over time and are discussed by people within the
organisation. The phrase self-organised is explained as people within an organisation
will see a need to change the way things are done, discuss it with others and this will
eventually lead to a new or updated model or schema. Emergent is described as the
good or changed models or schemas becoming predominant over time and becoming
the new way of doing things (they rise to the surface). Good ideas are incorporated
into how things are done. I then ask them, during open discussion how this helps them
in understanding organisations at a general level and secondly, how this helps then
understand the Air Force or the Management Services organisation better. Comments
are recorded on butchers paper so that participants can see what is written. They are
invited to correct any mistakes or misrepresentations I many make.
Slide 19 – I ensure I give the group time to read the attribute a couple of times before
speaking. Models and schemas are described as a standard way of responding to
events or how things are done around here. The phrase agent interaction is described
as the way people within an organisation interact with each other. The opportunities
that they may have to cross organisational boundaries is also considered. Agents may
be older, experienced personnel or young, new personnel with less experience. The
phrase existing models and schemas was described as discussion over what is
currently done and whether it still “fits” with what the external environment is telling
them it wants. I then ask them, during open discussion how this helps them in
understanding organisations at a general level and secondly, how this helps then
understand the Air Force or the Management Services organisation better. Comments
are recorded on butchers paper so that participants can see what is written. They are
invited to correct any mistakes or misrepresentations I many make.
Slide 20 – This is a summary slide where I solicit more discussion and ask if there
should be other attributes and if there is anything that has been missed. I then prompt
what these attributes may mean in terms of us understanding organisations.
Comments are recorded on butchers paper so that participants can see what is written.
They are invited to correct any mistakes or misrepresentations I many make.
Slide 21 – I read through the postulates and seek and record any reaction.
Slide 22 – I then seek feedback on the entire focus group workshop thus far. I ask
them for feedback on the content of the focus group workshop, the workshop process
and on any learning they have experienced. I ask them if there is a better way of
doing the workshop and record their responses on butchers paper. I also ask them
which elements of complexity theory they found most useful in terms of stimulating
their thoughts on the challenges of understanding organisations. Comments are, again
recorded.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
B-5
_____________________________________________________________________
Slide 23 – I conclude the focus group workshop, thank participants for their input and
answer any final questions that they may have.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
Appendix C
Focus Group Workshop Slides
Slide 1
Complexity Theory &
Understanding
Organisations
Wing Commander Callum Brown
Slide 2
Structure of Workshop
•Background
•Part 1 - What is Complexity Theory?
•Part 2 - Focus Group on the attributes
•Part 3 - Reflection and Feedback on Parts
1 and 2
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
C-2
_____________________________________________________________________
Slide 3
Background
•Enrolled in DBA in 2001
•Topic of interest - Complexity Theory,
Complex Adaptive Systems, Chaos theory
•Thesis focus - Can the attributes of
Complexity Theory assist us in
understanding organisations?
•Research Methodology - Action Research
Slide 4
Why you and Management Services?
•26 Air Force and APS members who have
management consulting skills and experience
•Your role as internal management consultants is to
assist clients in aspects of understanding their
organisations
•Well placed to comment on usefulness or otherwise
of the attributes
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
C-3
_____________________________________________________________________
Slide 5
Benefit to you and the RAAF
• An explanation for some of the things that have
happened in the past
• a frame for examining current behaviour - good
things and bad things
• a way of understanding how future changes may
come about and how to successfully deal with
them
• what does this mean for you?
Slide 6
Background Summary
•Structure of focus group
•My area of study and research
methodology
•What Air Force and you may gain from
the session
•questions
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
C-4
_____________________________________________________________________
Slide 7
Part 1 - What is complexity theory?
“Life is creative. It makes it up as
it goes along, changing the rules
even.”
Francisco Varela
Understanding Self Organising Systems’ theory
and its applications in social and organisational
contexts is one of the urgent challenges facing
tomorrow’s leaders today.
Slide 8
An Organisation - in theory
Director
Asst Staff Spvr
Manager
Manager
Manager
Manager
Manager
Manager
Manager
Manager
Director
Director
Manager
Manager
Manager
Manager
Manager
Manager
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
C-5
_____________________________________________________________________
Slide 9
An Organisation - in practice
dssddsdsss
ds
dssddsdss
•
•
•
•
dsdss
s
•
ddssd
•
dssddsdssddaad
dssdss
dss
d
dssdds
• •
•
• •
sdssd
dssd
•
•
dssdssdsd
ddssdssd
Slide 10
Organisations and the world
in which they come into form
• The universe is a living, creative, experimenting
experience of discovering what’s possible, at all levels of
scale, from microbe to cosmos.
• Life’s natural tendency is to organise. Life organises
into greater levels of complexity to support more
diversity and greater sustainability.
• Life uses messes to get to well-ordered solutions.
• Life organises around a self. Organising is always an
act of creating an identity.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
C-6
_____________________________________________________________________
Slide 11
Organisations and the world
in which they come into form -- 2
• Life self-organises. Networks, patterns, and structures
emerge without external imposition or direction.
Organisation wants to happen.
• Life is intent on finding what works, not what is right.
• Everything participates in the creation and evolution of its
neighbours.
• People are intelligent, creative, adaptive, self-organising,
and meaning seeking.
• Organisations are living systems. They too are intelligent,
creative, adaptive, self-organising, and meaning seeking.
Slide 12
What is complexity theory?
•Take in data from their environments,
find regularities in the data, compress
these into internal models that are used to
describe and predict the future.
•Exhibit evolutionary processes- internal
models are subjected to selection pressures
resulting in changes to the models over
time
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
C-7
_____________________________________________________________________
Slide 13
Complexity theory - summary
•Relatively new way of thinking about
organisations and their behaviour
•Difficult to fully grasp all at one time
•Must look at the “crude whole”
•Different to what we are used to
Slide 14
Part 2 - Attributes
Organisations are non-linear, open,
and far from equilibrium
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
C-8
_____________________________________________________________________
Slide 15
Part 2 - Attributes
Organisational behaviour is a result of
adaptation to the environment, based
on experience
Slide 16
Part 2 - Attributes
Organisational behaviour is a function
of internal models or schemas that
are the result of perceived regularities
in experience
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
C-9
_____________________________________________________________________
Slide 17
Part 2 - Attributes
Emergent global complex system
behaviour involves the aggregate
behaviour of agents
Slide 18
Part 2 - Attributes
Internal models and schemas are
actively constructed, self-organised
and emergent
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
C-10
_____________________________________________________________________
Slide 19
Part 2 - Attributes
Internal models and schemas are a
function of both agent interaction and
existing internal models and schemas
Slide 20
Attributes - Summary
•Six attributes
•similar
•utility in an organisational setting
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
C-11
_____________________________________________________________________
Slide 21
Eight Postulates - Brodnick and Krafft
• all organisations are potentially chaotic
• organisations are attracted to identifiable configurations
• organisations move among dynamic states through a
process of bifurcation
• the geometry of organisational attraction tends to be fractal
in nature
• functionally accurate forecasting is impossible on a broad
scale and for the long term
• cause and effect are not closely related in time and space
• massive interventions may have insignificant results and
small interventions may have massive results
• similar actions taken by organisations will never lead to the
same result
Slide 22
Part 3 - Feedback
•Background
•Part 1 - What is Complexity Theory?
•Part 2 - Attributes
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
C-12
_____________________________________________________________________
Slide 23
Questions?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
Appendix D
Focus Group Workshop Comments
_____________________________________________________________________
Cycle 1 – Canberra – 29 Jan 2003
WORKSHOP NOTES (MANAGEMENT OUTCOMES, RESEARCH
OUTCOMES, PERSONAL LEARNING)
Concept 1 – A bit of a generalisation; some organisation are in equilibrium and must
maintain stability ie Government and Legal entities. Some are in disequilibrium ie
businesses.
Culture plays a big part and needs to be included in the concept. Products and
services don’t necessarily need to change.
Organisations may be in equilibrium for a while but events may throw them into a
period of disequilibrium.
It may be a degree thing – Air Force has attempted to maintain the status quo and has
been internally focussed.
Concept 1 is what good organisations should be. Can take the organisational life
cycle view ie Navy may not see how they should be changing in response to changing
community values.
People are individuals and some can get left behind if they do not adapt to changes in
their external environment.
Progressive organisations seek input from the external environment and may lead the
way whereas the military seeks equilibrium – full of STJs
Small family companies may not see the need for change until a younger generation
member takes over control
Change management applications can suggest openness to environment. Equilibrium
comes into the planning equation ie in taking the organisation from now to the future
change is required, usually based on the changing requirements of the external
environment. Organisations may also plan with a view to seeking equilibrium.
Planning methodologies take into consideration the external environment. Need to be
sure you differentiate between a tool and an outcome. The plan will or may change in
response to changing circumstances (therefore non-linear?)
The plan is a communication tool for management and related information flows
particularly upward.
Different types of companies will be comfortable with different levels of equilibrium
ie Gov. and Law vs the Dot.coms.
Concept 2 – some don’t like the term “involves”
More individual agent based rather than an organisation.
Greater experience can mean the ability to come up with more possible solutions
Lack of experience can mean novel approaches to problems and novel solutions
It depends where your organisation is on the equilibrium ‘bell curve’ as to the value
of experience in dealing with challenges.
Individual and group behaviours are relevant – groups can cause peer group pressure
and the quashing of good new solutions. Healthy attrition of the more experience in
an organisation like the Air Force is a good thing.
Adaptation to the environment is sometimes compromised due to past experiences.
On the equilibrium bell curve different approaches suit different organisations. Orgs
also have different cultures ie heavily unionised with strikes etc.
In the military experience gets you promoted to more senior levels therefore senior
leaders have had limited exposure to organisations other than the military. This can
cause reinvention of the wheel. There can also be problems associated with span of
control and large groups vs small groups.
_____________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
D-2
_____________________________________________________________________
Some comfort can be taken from relying on experience but what is the level of risk in
the situation? Ie major decisions about an AF weapons system that is 30 yrs old?
Being aware that decision making is based on experience is important to
acknowledge.
The MSA recruits a wide range of experience. How we make decisions is also an
attitudinal and cultural thing.
We need to recognise and capitalise on the diversity in backgrounds of experience.
Concept 3 – pilot retention bonus, which didn’t achieve its goals was followed by an
ENGO and LOG retention bonus.
The challenge for many organisations is that models and schemas can have a great
deal of feeling and emotion attached to them – it can be emotionally and physically
difficult to change them.
In MSA our clients don’t usually get what they have learned to expect from ‘helpers’
and usually end up delighted with the outcomes which are non-standard (surprised)
Organisational behaviours is a function of more than just internal models and schemas
Internal models and schemas are an individual thing as well and together shape
organisational culture.
Concept 4 – decentralising decision making to local levels can create emergent
behaviour at the local level
Military and political leaders may be influenced by what they think people will think
of their actions and decisions are therefore made for different reasons.
Emergent behaviour may be quite different from what is expected.
Leaders can set the tone of organisational behaviours.
The size of the organisation is a factor. With more people it is difficult to reach a
consensus and get ‘buy in’. Sometimes groups cannot come to a decision ie MSA
conference.
The aggregate may drive people out of the organisation if the models and schemas
offend them.
In organisational change critical mass is important to gain to make it happen
Concept 5 – there is manipulation (to a degree) by people in charge of organisations.
They can steer the organisation where they want it to go.
This is perhaps easier in smaller organisations.
The assumption is that things are constantly changing (and that there is constant
resistance to change) and that nothing is static any more.
People will change at different rates in different ways. Ie the Adaptive Leadership
Program is interfering in schema development for the Air Force.
Drivers may be the more senior leadership – there needs to be a powerful champion to
drive change.
Schema construction is influenced by training and experience.
Recognition of the need for change needs to occur, plus others need to be willing to
support the idea (coalition).
Concept 6 – the degree of change required will impact on the amount of use of
internal models and schemas versus agent interaction.
Depends on how embedded social rituals and cultural norms are – mindsets are
difficult to change (easier to change behaviours)
The ability to cross and see over organisational boundaries is an important factor
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
D-3
_____________________________________________________________________
What if there is no agent interaction? Would you still get changes to internal models
and schemas ie. More variables at work?
MSA conferences (agent interaction) creates models and schemas but perhaps more
variables are involved.
We need to encourage the amount of agent interaction in organisations
Organisations need to consider the diversity of the background of their agents and
how this impacts on internal models and schemas.
General Comments – The concepts are general rather than specific.
As a generalisation they are beneficial in explaining organisational complexities but
they are only the tip of the iceberg.
Content – Why use of the term “overlapping” concepts – begs the question ; ‘what
overlaps?’
What is a complex system as opposed to a simple system?
Cycle 2 – Amberley – 5 Feb 2003
WORKSHOP NOTES (MANAGEMENT OUTCOMES, RESEARCH
OUTCOMES, PERSONAL LEARNING)
Concept 1 – expectations of what the organisation will and can do increase through
input from the external environment. Ie there will be expectations that the
organisation will and can adapt to external stimuli.
Is the organisation seeking equilibrium?
The Air Force is conservative and works against this attribute
The attribute is facilitated by technology ie. E-mail
Concept 2 – What about adaptation to anticipated changes?
Organisations can ignore or misread the signs in the external environment
Do we subconsciously do a ‘risk analysis’ of the likelihood of a change forced
through the external environment?
If we don’t know anything about a future potential change (ie no experience) we (Air
Force) will put our heads in the sand and wait until the Big Stick approach is ordered.
We could consider how experience could inhibit adaptation as consultants.
Adaptation can depend on the “type” (MBTI) of an organisation ie STJ organisations
versus N (new ways) organisations.
Concept 3 – Models and schemas are hard to change ie the Air Force move to a
values-based organisation.
Strongly embedded models and schemas are hard to change.
Change the experience (through demonstrating regular behaviour) to change the
model or schema
Leaders need to model new behaviours to change the schemas and models
Identification of internal models and schemas is required before you can attempt to
change them. (cultural norms)
Concept 4 – there can be dominant groups/agents in organisations
Rules and regulations can impact on behaviours ie. Drinking and aircrew
We need to understand the predominant behaviour of different groups
We probably understand this subconsciously as management consultants ie who we
need to speak to (influencers and powerbrokers of a client organisation)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
D-4
_____________________________________________________________________
Concept 5 – Networks make things happen in organisations. A system will bypass
bad bits or blocks and achieve ‘workarounds’
Should we do away with formal linear systems in organisations?
Political motivations will impact on the behaviour of agents in the system
We have a desire to create the right impression to the right people in the Air Force
culture.
There is less human interaction now within/between units in the Air Force and this
has an impact on self-organising behaviour.
Concept 6 – There may be other catalysts ie regulatory requirements that impact on
internal models and schemas ie. Navy and crossing the line ceremonies and cultural
change through critical events (catalysts).
General Comments – The Air Force (and organisations) have a facade that sits on top
of what actually happens ie org diagrams, RIs, SOPs etc
The linearity of organisations articulates a role/function, a “what” whereas complexity
theory provides the “how” to think about it.
Can a system exist without a purpose?
Cycle 3 – Edinburgh – 7 Feb 2003
WORKSHOP NOTES (MANAGEMENT OUTCOMES, RESEARCH
OUTCOMES, PERSONAL LEARNING)
Concept 1 – Linear representations are used to explain things but it’s not how things
really work in the workplace.
Organisations are now more open than they ever used to be especially commercial
organisations.
May be able to explain this attribute to clients so they better understand their
organisations.
The Service industry is particularly non-linear and not in equilibrium
Concept 2 – Air Force and changes to rules on homosexuality in the Defence Force
(external pressures)
Concept 3 – In Air Force we try and drag contractors and APS into our models and
schemas rather than accepting “new” ideas from the contractors and APS members.
We are very slowly adapting to some of their ways of thinking.
Concept 4 – The Air Force needs to do more to encourage the aggregation aspect of
this attribute. There are still too many stovepipes ie training people not sufficiently
exposed to the OPS world and vice versa.
The Air Force is currently targeting specific groups to change the emergent schemas
and models ie the SLT through the ALP, Recruits and Officer Trainees.
Organisations (or agents) need to make the effort to interact more from a consulting
perspective.
Concept 5 – We must accept that organisations will continue to change over time. We
can’t expect things to remain the same over time.
People in organisations take comfort from predictability and routine (ie. Kids
changing schools etc) – this creates a level of stress
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
D-5
_____________________________________________________________________
Introducing new things without having a link to the past is fraught with danger ie. Too
scary to contemplate (leading to bifurcation and loss of equilibrium)
Concept 6 – New agents will cause many of these changes ie executive changeover.
In the Air Force some agents ‘rely’ on the ability of other agents to provide good
quality input ie senior execs depending on subordinates doing their jobs well.
General Comments –
Feedback
Attribute 4 & 5 are too similar
Include ‘Attributes” in heading of handout (place the handout in context)
Organsiations are
open, non-linear and
far from equilibrium
Six attributes of
Complexity Theory
Etc
No numbers
Cover in no apparent order ie but don’t move round in a circle
CHANGE SLIDES SO THAT THERE IS NO CONFUSION BETWEEN
ATTRIBUTES AND CONCEPTS. EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER.
Questions for each attribute should be as follows:
1.How does this help in understanding organsiations?
2. What about understanding the Air Force or MSA?
Cycle 4 – Laverton – 12 Feb 2003
WORKSHOP NOTES (MANAGEMENT OUTCOMES, RESEARCH
OUTCOMES, PERSONAL LEARNING)
Concept 1 – Open for MSA also means being open to management ideas from the
private sector
Management practices in the Air Force have evolved over time in response to the
external business environment
We can assist managers understand peaks and troughs in their workloads. Individuals
need peaks and troughs too – can’t operate flat out all the time.
The Air Force posting cycle creates levels of disequilibrium.
Work/Life balance and soft landing is a way that CAF has recognised the
disequilibrium in AF.
Most managers accept levels of disequilibrium but only within set control limits
Management sees its responsibility to smooth the peaks and troughs and where people
overdo it at a personal level, send them away on leave.
There are particular Defence units that are working on some of the problems
associated with these elements ie Adaptive leadership program
Concept 2 – AF creates contingency plans based on prediction
Experience must be provided all the time as the AF workforce ages.
In AF scenario planning attempts to predict.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
D-6
_____________________________________________________________________
The validity of particular experience needs to be tested each time a ‘new’ situation
arises
Where there are low levels of experience or no experience there is generally greater
fear of the unknown
In AF adaptation to a quickly changing environment can lead to ‘knee-jerk’ reactions
Experience can become redundant in an organisation as the external environment
changes.
Concept 3 – This could be based on a desire for ‘efficiency’ ie. Casualty departments
at hospitals and identifying causes of trauma
Clients may have to be confronted with their models and schemas – which may be
unwritten and unspoken – in order to examine their utility
Concept 4 – The time factor is important with this attribute due to the need for the
interaction of agents – interaction needs time. (vs rate of change in environment)
The emergent behaviours may not be acceptable to all agents (leading to…?)
Values form a part of models and schemas and are therefore difficult to change.
Concept 5 – Good ideas can come from any level in the organisation
As consultants we need to help the good ideas come out ie. Facilitate the dynamic
constructive processes.
Organisational dysfunction occurs where bosses put a cap on emergent behaviour
Different personalities may seek different environments in terms of stability. Ie some
people stress in highly dynamic environments and therefore seek more stable
environments.
The speed of emergent behaviour will vary between and within organisations
As consultants 90% of our recommendations come from within the organisation itself.
Ie we facilitate the self-organising process.
We are often seen as the medium that connects the boss with his/her people
Concept 6 – A MSA team model will change if one member of that team does a job
with another team.
MSA has gone through the process of becoming one team, as opposed to five separate
teams
We help our clients understand where agents are interacting within their
organisations.
General Comments – In our work we often connect at an individual level with agents
in that organisation.
Focus Groups are also used to develop ‘themes’ – perhaps aggregate behaviours?
The activity of self-organising can be tiring for the catalyst agents ie Deming and
acceptance of ideas eventually
The focus group was found to be very useful.
Cycle 5 – Williamtown – 18 Feb 2003
WORKSHOP NOTES (MANAGEMENT OUTCOMES, RESEARCH
OUTCOMES, PERSONAL LEARNING)
Concept 1 – People within organisations think of their jobs in linear terms as a way of
making sense of them.
The attribute is subjective but still provides a reference point
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
D-7
_____________________________________________________________________
The definition is too general to be useful.
Non-linear organisations reach the same goals through different routes or systems
The definition appears self-evident
Planning may help make sense of the external environment.
People may have trouble coping with this attribute.
Concept 2 – Other factors may influence adaptation other than previous experience.
Experience and reaction are two quite different things (separate) and culture plays a
big part.
There may be a dominant collective experience ie a “Can Do” attitude.
Behaviours could be traced back to particular experiences. Strong personalities can
also influence organisational behaviours.
Concept 3 – This attribute can be constrained when not part of the collective
experience
We must understand the client’s models and schemas:
Then find the appropriate experience for them
We must get them to acknowledge that things as they currently are, are
not acceptable
Consultants must use what is acceptable to the client’s existing models and schemas
Change the model to change the behaviours
Seek successful role models to model behaviours which will change the existing
models and schemas that are not appropriate.
Attribute 3 is potentially of greater use as consultants than attribute2
Concept 4 – Agents may choose not to contribute to interaction with other agents
Can we increase the amount of agents (inputs) in the aggregation process?
The ability to influence and range of diversity of views is important in this attribute
As consultants how do we view the aggregation process? Ie how do we analyse it?
Can we strengthen the agents we believe are correct to get closer to the desired
behaviour?
A response the attribute is “so what?” That’s Life anyway!
The “brown paper” process is a process of aggregation
Concept 5 – As consultants we can assist with the active construction and self
organisation process.
Some first thoughts are to disagree with the attribute.
Some models and schemas are not tested sufficiently. (frequency and depth)
We need to create an environment that would encourage this process. The attribute
could be seen as a result of a healthy organisation.
If viewed in a negative sense the attribute can contribute to learned helplessness.
Concept 6 – Investigating this attribute may help us understand who the influencers
are in an organisation.
The attribute should also assist us in understanding cultural change in organisations
We, as consultants, need to understand a client’s organisation, his models and
schemas.
Attribute 6 is similar to attribute 5.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
D-8
_____________________________________________________________________
Personality will influence how business is done in an organisation, particularly of the
influential agents (CEO?) There will be some agents that are more powerful or
influential than others.
We need to look for artefacts of models and schemas.
You cannot (ever) start with nothing in an organisation – there is always something
already there in terms of models and schemas.
Some agents have “moved on” because of their challenges to existing models or
schemas ie fired or left.
Cycle 6 – Richmond – 25 Feb 2003
WORKSHOP NOTES (MANAGEMENT OUTCOMES, RESEARCH
OUTCOMES, PERSONAL LEARNING)
Concept 1 – In organisations, non-equilibrium and sustainability must be issues
In Air Force operational tempo and organisational tempo must be considered in terms
of sustainability issues
The attribute is useful in considering military organisations where they tend to seek
order.
The Air Force is now more open to its external environment than it previously was in
the past. This has created less equilibrium in the AF as it has had to adapt to external
influences and is more open to external scrutiny.
The younger people coming into the organisation through the recruiting process are
having a greater impact as they have different expectations of what they want from air
force and how long they expect to serve causing Air Force to rethink its policies and
causing internal change
By conducting sustainable management workshops we can assist our clients deal with
the lack of equilibrium.
Through facilitating planning we can draw the attention of clients to the open nature
of Air Force organisations through SWOT analysis in planning
Within client’s organisations processes and systems may need to change.
Our client’s sponsors detect disequilibrium and call for our help. Due to our openness
and our non-linear thinking we are in a position to assist them.
Our awareness of the attributes puts us in a position to be able to assist them
Concept 2 – We (Air Force/Defence) acknowledges experience but whether we value
it is the question
The Air Force internal environment is set up to increase experience levels ie posting
cycles, however discharges can create experience gaps.
Air Force HR policies are not well thought-out in this regard. How do we evaluate
the effectiveness of Air Force HR policies?
We are not stable enough to fully capitalise on experience ie due to posting cycles.
There is no combat experience in the current Air Force (apart from training) therefore
our adaptation requirements will be more important in the future
We can assist by implementing our client’s “lessons learned” however there are
resource constraints in making this happen, we fail to close the loop and capitalise on
our learnings, and this is not helped by the posting cycles causing re-learning
Concept 3 – This attribute is affected by openness, education, awareness of the
external environment.
We need to increase our exposure to alternative ways to change our models and
schemas
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
D-9
_____________________________________________________________________
The attribute is an articulation of ‘business as usual’ (one participant’s interpretation)
The Technical Trades Restructure (TTR) ‘experiment’ did not consider the human
factors of the change – only efficiency and retention of corporate knowledge.
We can assist clients by highlighting human factors in the work we do for clients.
We are struck with the barriers to effective work ie LACW attempting to join MSA
and corporate intransigence.
We can attempt to influence only.
Concept 4 – The Senior Leadership Team development work has not cascaded to
lower levels yet.
We, as consultants can attempt to influence the aggregation behaviour of agents ie. By
doing lower – level jobs for example.
Some of this comes from the Values Team work done by the SLT but are we seeing
the changed behaviours?
We could work at multiple levels to attempt to influence aggregate behaviours.
We can focus on implementation of change
We can facilitate the aggregation process.
Concept 5 – ‘Actively constructed’ could mean determined steps are taken rather than
this happening by chance.
Our workshops encourage this type of behaviour – if we facilitate well all voices are
heard and no one view predominates – get fuller input
We can only act as facilitators of the process or catalysts.
Concept 6 – The Air Force’s organisational boundaries are becoming looser
We can pull out ALL the attributes of a client’s culture
Defence is neglecting the people side of equations
We need to challenge the current way things are done and assist our clients in doing
this too.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
Appendix E
Intent and Reflection Comments
_____________________________________________________________________
Cycle 1 – Canberra – 29 Jan 2003
Questions to enhance intention:
1a. What do I think are the salient features of this situation?
It is the first cycle and I am not particularly confident in either the content or the
process. While I think that the Canberra team will be supportive of what I am
attempting to achieve they will probably have many suggestions on how to make the
workshop better. I hope that their suggestions are not contrary to where I wish to take
the model and the workshop.
Participants are my subordinates and will not necessarily wish to put me off.
It will be the first cycle and I will be experiencing a degree of nervousness.
1b. Why do I think those are the salient features?
They will have or may have a direct impact on the outcome of the cycle.
2a. Given that situation, what do I think are the desirable outcomes?
The desirable outcome would be a generally positive acceptance with some positive
suggestions on how I can improve the model and the workshop.
2b. Why do I think those are the desirable outcomes?
I think these are desirable outcomes as I would like to think that other people
(organisational consultants) think that there is something in a complexity theory
metaphor for understanding organisational behaviour.
3a. What actions do I think will achieve those outcomes in that situation?
Demonstrate a personal enthusiasm for the model and be able to provide examples of
where the overlapping concepts may have been seen to occur in organisational
settings.
3b. Why do I think those actions will achieve those outcomes in that situation?
I think because the range of participants in the focus group are generally lateral
thinkers with some of them having extensive experience in management consulting.
I think that, as a group, they are probably lateral thinkers who would seriously
entertain thoughts of attempting new ways of looking at organisational behaviour.
Questions to enhance reflection:
(First revisiting question 2 above, on outcomes)
2a. Were the outcomes achieved?
In general yes they were achieved. I got feedback on the usefulness of the overlapping
concepts and of the workshop itself such that it can be improved for the next cycle.
2b. If so, now that I've got them, do I still want them?
Yes, because I can use the information in the next cycle, and nothing arose that was
particularly contrary to what I was attempting to get across. I guess some more
disconfirming evidence at this early stage may have been more challenging.
2c. Why/why not?
I can use the outcomes to improve the way I communicate the information in the next
cycles, particularly in terms of process.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
E-2
_____________________________________________________________________
If not...
1a. Was I mistaken about the situation?
1b. If so, in what respect?
1c. What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
2d. Was I mistaken about the desirable outcomes?
2e. If so, in what respect?
2f. What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
3a. Was I mistaken about the desirable actions?
3b. If so, in what respect?
3c. What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
3d. Did I produce the actions?
3e. If not, why not?
3f. What have I learned from that (about the situation, about the desirable outcomes,
about the desirable actions, about systems, about people, about myself...?)
What I am attempting to get across is not easy to comprehend and even with
intelligent and experienced management consultants the concepts take some time to
sink in. A better process may have been to conduct two workshops some 8 weeks
apart and give people time to digest the concepts and make better informed comments
on their utility.
Cycle 2 – Amberley – 5 Feb 2003
Questions to enhance intention:
1a. What do I think are the salient features of this situation?
This is now the second cycle and I am more confident that the content and the process
will be an improvement on cycle one after the changes I have made. There will
hopefully still be suggestions on how I can improve the workshop that will identify
different aspects to what the Canberra team suggested. I will be interested to see how
some of the changes will effect the outcome of the focus group, particularly how
helpful the handout will be. This will also be a smaller group than the Canberra cycle.
1b. Why do I think those are the salient features?
They are probably the biggest changes from my first experience at cycle 1.
2a. Given that situation, what do I think are the desirable outcomes?
The desirable outcome would be a generally positive acceptance with some positive
suggestions on how I can improve the model and the workshop (same as cycle 1).
2b. Why do I think those are the desirable outcomes?
I think these are desirable outcomes as I would like to think that other people
(organisational consultants) think that there is something in a complexity theory
metaphor for understanding organisational behaviour. Same as cycle one.
3a. What actions do I think will achieve those outcomes in that situation?
By ensuring that I apply the learning from the first cycle the outcome should be
improved.
3b. Why do I think those actions will achieve those outcomes in that situation?
The group has had the same training and much the same experience as the first group.
I believe that they are looking forward to the focus group - some may have even
researched complexity theory on the www in preparation for the focus group.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
E-3
_____________________________________________________________________
Questions to enhance reflection:
(First revisiting question 2 above, on outcomes)
2a. Were the outcomes achieved?
The outcomes were largely achieved. There was a generally positive acceptance of the
material and there were some suggestions on how I could improve the focus group
and content. The group confirmed that some of the changes from cycle 1 were good
ideas and that the focus group flowed well. This group also appeared to be able to
consider work situations where they could use the content.
2b. If so, now that I've got them, do I still want them?
Yes, although there were fewer suggestions for improvement there were still useful
comments made on how further improvements could be made not only to the process
but also the content.
2c. Why/why not?
The suggestions made and comments made on the six attribute have added to my
understanding of the material and the process.
If not...
1a. Was I mistaken about the situation?
1b. If so, in what respect?
1c. What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
2d. Was I mistaken about the desirable outcomes?
2e. If so, in what respect?
2f. What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
3a. Was I mistaken about the desirable actions?
3b. If so, in what respect?
3c. What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
3d. Did I produce the actions?
3e. If not, why not?
3f. What have I learned from that (about the situation, about the desirable outcomes,
about the desirable actions, about systems, about people, about myself...?)
What I learned this cycle was that firstly I was more relaxed about presenting the
focus group and eliciting discussion from the group. I took more time in explaining
the background to focus group and in explaining complexity theory itself. I allowed
more time for each attribute to be considered before asking for input and what
participants thought of the attribute. With a more relaxed pace, participants appeared
to have more time to think and consider how they could apply the attribute in an
organisational setting.
The participants appeared to appreciate the handout notes and many used the
available space on the handout to take their own notes, particularly in relation to the
definition of terms.
I found that there were certain similarities in terms of some points raised with
the Canberra cycle. I found myself questioning whether these similarities were due to
the organisational culture that we all work in and whether the same comments would
arise, say with a group of internal management consultants from industry. This may
prove a potentially useful test if this continues through all the cycles.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
E-4
_____________________________________________________________________
I also found that I need to be careful about version control such that the words
on the handout are consistent with the words I use on the slides. There were
inconsistencies in this cycle.
Cycle 3 – Edinburgh – 7 Feb 2003
Questions to enhance intention:
1a. What do I think are the salient features of this situation?
In this cycle I am far more confident that what I have is of the standard that should
elicit a favourable response. Although this will be a focus group with the smallest
number of participants yet (2 people), their input, as two of the Agency’s most
experienced consultants will be important.
1b. Why do I think those are the salient features?
I think my confidence will assist in communicating the material that I need to
communicate. With such a small group there may be more or less pressure on the
participants to offer input, this could lead to rushed rather than considered responses.
As two of the Agency’s most experienced consultants the data and input that they
provide could be the most valuable yet.
2a. Given that situation, what do I think are the desirable outcomes?
A desirable outcome would be similar to previous cycles in that they will offer
improvements to the content and the process. They will also hopefully be able to
offer more suggestions as to how complexity theory could be applied to management
consulting work.
2b. Why do I think those are the desirable outcomes?
I think that the content and process of the focus group can still be improved and that
the expertise within this group will ensure that a greater focus on application of the
attributes to understanding organisations will result.
3a. What actions do I think will achieve those outcomes in that situation?
A higher degree of confidence on my part will mean more fluid communication as I
become more confident with the concepts and peoples reactions to them and my
ability to use the terminology. The focus group will again be a morning group where
the participants will be fresh and enthusiastic.
3b. Why do I think those actions will achieve those outcomes in that situation?
The experience and expertise in the group should ensure that the quality of the input is
good. When I am more relaxed I should be more attentive to how the participants are
relaxing and what they are saying.
Questions to enhance reflection:
(First revisiting question 2 above, on outcomes)
2a. Were the outcomes achieved?
The outcomes were achieved, but probably not in the way that I had expected. One
participant got more from the focus group than they had anticipated and found it very
interesting and useful. They were able to add some very good point for improving the
next focus group and for using complexity theory in understanding organisations.
The second participant, although an experienced consultant, was more challenged by
the ‘academic’ nature of some of the material. Where he was able to add value,
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
E-5
_____________________________________________________________________
however was in the application of the theory area. He was also able to give some
excellent advice on how to make the presentation more people friendly, particularly in
terms of the handout.
2b. If so, now that I've got them, do I still want them?
Yes, I provided me with the insight that some people will continue to be challenged
by the very level of the material that is introduced. It also confirmed that most people
will need time to think about the concepts raised and how they can be applied to
increase organisational understanding.
2c. Why/why not?
The comments that were provided have assisted in further refinement of the
presentation and of the material. These learning will be folded into the next focus
group to be run as cycle 4.
If not...
1a. Was I mistaken about the situation?
1b. If so, in what respect?
1c. What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
2d. Was I mistaken about the desirable outcomes?
2e. If so, in what respect?
2f. What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
3a. Was I mistaken about the desirable actions?
3b. If so, in what respect?
3c. What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
3d. Did I produce the actions?
3e. If not, why not?
3f. What have I learned from that (about the situation, about the desirable outcomes,
about the desirable actions, about systems, about people, about myself...?)
What I learned this cycle was that the process I employ works with a small group
quite well. It is more intimate and individual questions can be answered with more
time. It does not appear to put undue pressure on the fewer participants to contribute.
Some good suggestions were made on how to amend the handout notes to
remove the linear nature of some of the educative part of the focus group process.
This group, based on its extensive experience with consulting in organisations,
was able to offer some good ideas about how the concepts of complexity theory could
be used in understanding organisations.
Although I had fixed the version control problems with the slides and
handouts, there was still some refinements to be done in terms of terminology ie
concepts vs attributes.
Cycle 4 – Laverton – 12 Feb 2003
Questions to enhance intention:
1a. What do I think are the salient features of this situation?
In this cycle I am conscious that I will be conducting the workshop early during my
visit so I will not have had time to rebuild my relationship with the team members and
there may be other issues on their mind that prevent a relaxed participation. The
handout that I use during the focus group has changed quite significantly in format so
it should be interesting to see how this is accepted. It think that the use of examples
will be very important.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
E-6
_____________________________________________________________________
1b. Why do I think those are the salient features?
Running the workshop early during the team visit and during the afternoon may mean
that the interaction with the group could be more stilted – this may increase my level
of apprehension. Further, one of the team members is very pragmatic and he may
have trouble with the conceptual nature of the material. The handout will either help
a lot or they will recommend that it return to what it was previously.
2a. Given that situation, what do I think are the desirable outcomes?
A desirable outcome would be that the group quickly warms to the idea of being
exposed to new material and can offer some good pragmatic advice not only on the
content of the focus group but also on the process. The second desirable outcome is
that the team gets something from the material in terms of learnings and exposure to
new ways of thinking about organisations.
2b. Why do I think those are the desirable outcomes?
I would like to think that not only my objectives are achieved but also that the team
consider the exercise worthwhile. If I get good feedback, particularly from the
pragmatic member of the team it will mean that what I have, or will develop will also
appeal to people who require a more concrete model to use within organisations.
3a. What actions do I think will achieve those outcomes in that situation?
I will need to get myself into a confident and easygoing state before commencing the
focus group. Despite my inward feelings I will need to ensure I proceed at a leisurely
pace and provide plenty of practical examples. If I am challenged on any of the
attributes I will need to do my best to explain but stop short of defending my
viewpoint – it is OK for participants to disagree.
3b. Why do I think those actions will achieve those outcomes in that situation?
These actions will give me the best chance of succeeding given the nature of the
group and the situation in which I am presenting.
Questions to enhance reflection:
(First revisiting question 2 above, on outcomes)
2a. Were the outcomes achieved?
The outcomes were achieved, and my concerns regarding the pragmatic member of
the group did not unfold. The group quickly warmed to the ideas presented in the
focus group – I think that they were looking forward to the focus group activity. Two
members of the group had been exposed to the Senior Executive Seminars that
introduced the concept of Self-Organising systems by Rod Anderson. Whereas there
was not much detail provided by Rod, I was able to provide some additional detail
that stimulated more thought on how the concepts could be applied.
2b. If so, now that I've got them, do I still want them?
Yes, the group was able to provide some very valuable feedback that can be folded
into the next cycle. For example, they suggested that I provide more time after
introducing an attribute for the participants in the focus group to digest it. There was
also some good feedback about a perception that I devalue Rod Anderson’s slides
during my introduction of the overall concept of complex systems.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
E-7
_____________________________________________________________________
2c. Why/why not?
The suggestions that have been made by the participants in this cycle will be valuable
additions to the next cycle.
If not...
1a. Was I mistaken about the situation?
1b. If so, in what respect?
1c. What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
2d. Was I mistaken about the desirable outcomes?
2e. If so, in what respect?
2f. What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
3a. Was I mistaken about the desirable actions?
3b. If so, in what respect?
3c. What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
3d. Did I produce the actions?
3e. If not, why not?
3f. What have I learned from that (about the situation, about the desirable outcomes,
about the desirable actions, about systems, about people, about myself...?)
I have learned to not necessarily pre-judge how people will take to the material that I
present. Whereas I had some initial concerns about how one member of the group
would react, he provided some valuable insights into how the presentation may be
improved, how the attributes could be used in a consulting capacity, and how the
handout could be improved.
I probably need to record that since the first cycle I have been drawing a
diagram on a whiteboard that indicates the non-equilibrium aspect of organisational
behaviour in complex systems ie oscillations that can increase in amplitude until a
point of bifurcation can be reached that reduces the amplitude to a manageable level
before the cycle begins again.
The groups have also been providing some good insights into how external
agents can interact with internal agents to create interventions within organisations or
operate as catalysts to create internal agent interaction leading to updated models and
schemas. This may provide useful insight for areas of further study.
Cycle 5 – Williamtown – 18 Feb 2003
Questions to enhance intention:
1a. What do I think are the salient features of this situation?
In this cycle I am conscious that the group should be the largest yet that I have
worked with. The group also works with very pragmatic clients and, as such, they
must provide very pragmatic solutions. This may mean that they think what I
introduce will be of no use to them in a work situation.
Although I learned that I should not prejudge people in my last cycle, I feel
that some members of this group may struggle with the conceptual nature of the
material. Having said that, one member of the group is a very experienced consultant
with international experience.
1b. Why do I think those are the salient features?
The size of the group could well have an impact on the outcome of the focus group
because there may be less opportunity for interaction. The focus group may also take
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
E-8
_____________________________________________________________________
longer to complete. The external environment that this group works with may effect
their views of the intangible nature of the material.
2a. Given that situation, what do I think are the desirable outcomes?
The desirable outcomes would be that a larger focus group leads to a more
comprehensive outcome. Suggestions may show that notwithstanding pragmatic
clients, complexity theory has something to offer them in terms of organisational
behaviour understanding.
2b. Why do I think those are the desirable outcomes?
Because it will mean that my model of complexity theory for understanding
organisational behaviour is more universally useful.
3a. What actions do I think will achieve those outcomes in that situation?
Again, the use of plenty of examples both in organisations in general and within MSA
in particular may help in providing meaningful examples to the participants of the
focus group.
3b. Why do I think those actions will achieve those outcomes in that situation?
By providing examples it should bring a complex concept into the concrete to assist in
understanding.
Questions to enhance reflection:
(First revisiting question 2 above, on outcomes)
2a. Were the outcomes achieved?
The outcomes were achieved although I was not happy with my presentation of the
material. As I had thought, some members of the group were quite critical of the
material presented; however there was a range of views and some opposing views on
the same issue presented.
2b. If so, now that I've got them, do I still want them?
I need to work out what I will do with the contradictory views that were presented –
perhaps change nothing! I still want the outcomes of the presentation. There were
some good suggestions made about how I could improve the presentation of the
material and how an additional handout may assist.
2c. Why/why not?
I believe that by using the input from the group the presentation can be improved and
my understanding of complexity theory has improved, particularly with respect of
how it can assist with understanding organisations.
If not...
1a. Was I mistaken about the situation?
1b. If so, in what respect?
1c. What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
2d. Was I mistaken about the desirable outcomes?
2e. If so, in what respect?
2f. What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
3a. Was I mistaken about the desirable actions?
3b. If so, in what respect?
3c. What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
3d. Did I produce the actions?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
E-9
_____________________________________________________________________
3e. If not, why not?
3f. What have I learned from that (about the situation, about the desirable outcomes,
about the desirable actions, about systems, about people, about myself...?)
The group was not as big as I had initially thought with one member absent. Further,
there was limited time to conduct the focus group that made me overly conscious of
how long the focus group was going to take. I need to ensure that I take the time to
introduce the material in an unhurried manner. This made me apprehensive at the start
of the presentation and this showed through in the lack of confidence in my delivery.
The group participants provided some contradictory advice that probably came down
to individual preference. Where a contradiction exists I will await greater evidence
before making a change.
Cycle 6 – Richmond – 25 Feb 2003
Questions to enhance intention:
1a. What do I think are the salient features of this situation?
This is the final in my action research cycles. I will need to ensure that I maintain my
consistency in delivery despite the fact that it is the last cycle. I will be troubled if
many new ideas for improvement come out of this last cycle as it should be pretty
well refined by now. The situation will also be slightly different for the group as a
participant from the first cycle will be present. His presence will be to determine
whether there has been improvement since the first cycle.
The participation of John may affect the way the group behaves as he is not from the
Richmond team.
1b. Why do I think those are the salient features?
I think that these are the salient features because they are what make it different from
the previous cycles. As it is the sixth cycle there should be relatively little in terms of
suggestions for improvement. Having as participant someone who has done the focus
group before could change the group dynamic.
2a. Given that situation, what do I think are the desirable outcomes?
Given the above salient features, the desirable outcome would be general acceptance
of the complexity theory as a way of understanding organisations. Suggestions for
minor improvements would also be expected.
2b. Why do I think those are the desirable outcomes?
Those are the desirable outcomes as they would be consistent with previous
outcomes. They would also assist in my understanding of complexity theory and
improve the focus group if I need to conduct another focus group.
3a. What actions do I think will achieve those outcomes in that situation?
Primarily by taking my time the focus group should run well. I will also need to take
time to explain the action research process and the inclusion of the outside member of
the group for objectivity in the research process.
3b. Why do I think those actions will achieve those outcomes in that situation?
If the feedback from the other cycles can be relied upon, if I take my time, there
should be a general level of understanding from the focus group participants. There
should also be a few suggestions on how the focus group could be improved.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
E-10
_____________________________________________________________________
Questions to enhance reflection:
(First revisiting question 2 above, on outcomes)
2a. Were the outcomes achieved?
The outcomes were largely achieved. The impact of John sitting in as an observer did
not seem to put off any of the participants. There seemed to be a general level of
interest in the material and various improvement suggestions were offered.
2b. If so, now that I've got them, do I still want them?
Yes, the outcomes were generally positive and the participants felt that they could use
the attributes in their work with clients.
2c. Why/why not?
The outcomes add to my confidence that the attributes can assist organisational
practitioners understand client organisational behaviour.
If not...
1a. Was I mistaken about the situation?
1b. If so, in what respect?
1c. What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
2d. Was I mistaken about the desirable outcomes?
2e. If so, in what respect?
2f. What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
3a. Was I mistaken about the desirable actions?
3b. If so, in what respect?
3c. What led me to that mistake, and what have I learned from it?
3d. Did I produce the actions?
3e. If not, why not?
3f. What have I learned from that (about the situation, about the desirable outcomes,
about the desirable actions, about systems, about people, about myself...?)
I learned that as the number of cycles increases the amount of variation decreases so
that there appear to be less surprises in the later cycles. The interest evoked through
the earlier cycles wanes somewhat where less new suggestions for improvement are
made.
I may have to run the focus group for a group external to the Management
Services Agency to see if my results are applicable more generally to people who
work with organisations. I have the opportunity to run the session for the Air Force’s
Adaptive Leadership Program cell. These people do not work for me and would be
able to offer confirmation that the conclusions I have reached are more generally
applicable in other organisations.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
Appendix F
Focus Group Workshop Validity Questionnaire
_____________________________________________________________________
Cycle 6 – Richmond – 26 Feb 2003 Questions
1a. Is this focus group different from the first?
Yes
1b. If Yes, in what ways it is different?
Background – more information provided; better understanding of the how, who,
what etc.
What is Complexity Theory? – better and more thorough explanation of the
theory
Attribute 1 – less structure comments process; covered applicability to MSA
more.
Attribute 2 – less structured comments process; more interactive discussion.
Attribute 3 – as above
Attribute 4– as above
Attribute 5– as above
Attribute 6– as above
Feedback Session– as above
2a. Do you think that the participants were being ‘led’ by the facilitator? Why?
No – participants allowed to speak as desired and discussion generated lead by
participants. May need to use more examples to kick start discussion.
2b.Do you think the participants in this focus group had a better chance of
understanding complexity theory than the participants in the first group based
on the focus group?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
F-2
_____________________________________________________________________
Yes, as they were able to discuss ideas and concepts more as a group, rather
than responding as individuals.
2c. If yes/no, why?
See above
2d. What suggestions can you make to improve the focus group for the next
cycle?
Provide feedback on what current theory says, and perhaps what other MST’s
came up with (at end of sessions).
3. Do you have any other comments?
The time required to conduct the workshop seems to have reduced significantly.
Why? Less structured responses ie. not going round the room for responses.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
Appendix G
Focus Group Workshop Handout – Cycle 2
_____________________________________________________________________
COMPLEXITY THEORY AND ORGANISATIONAL UNDERSTANDING
1.
COMPLEX SYSTEMS ARE NONLINEAR, OPEN, AND FAR FROM
EQUILIBRIUM
2.
COMPLEX SYSTEM BEHAVIOUR IS
A RESULT OF ADAPTATION TO
THE ENVIRONMENT, BASED ON
EXPERIENCE
3.
COMPLEX SYSTEM BEHAVIOUR IS
A FUNCTION OF INTERNAL
MODELS OR SCHEMAS THAT ARE
THE RESULT OF PERCEIVED
REGULARITIES IN EXPERIENCE
4.
EMERGENT GLOBAL COMPLEX
SYSTEM BEHAVIOUR INVOLVES
THE AGGREGATE BEHAVIOUR OF
AGENTS
5.
INTERNAL MODELS AND SCHEMAS
ARE ACTIVELY CONSTRUCTED,
SELF-ORGANISED AND
EMERGENT
6.
INTERNAL MODELS AND SCHEMAS
ARE A FUNCTION OF BOTH AGENT
INTERACTION AND EXISTING
INTERNAL MODELS AND SCHEMAS
Further reading:
Action Research- http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar
McNiff, J & Whitehead, J. (2000) Action Research in Organisations, Routledge, London
Complexity Theory – http://www.santafe.edu/
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Callum Brown
ATTRIBUTES OF COMPLEXITY THEORY
INTERNAL MODELS AND
SCHEMAS ARE ACTIVELY
CONSTRUCTED, SELFORGANISED AND EMERGENT
ORGANISATIONAL
BEHAVIOUR IS A RESULT OF
ADAPTATION TO THE
ENVIRONMENT, BASED ON
EXPERIENCE
ORGANISATIONAL
BEHAVIOUR IS A FUNCTION
OF INTERNAL MODELS OR
SCHEMAS THAT ARE THE
RESULT OF PERCEIVED
REGULARITIES IN
EXPERIENCE
SIX ATTRIBUTES OF
COMPLEXITY THEORY
INTERNAL MODELS AND
SCHEMAS ARE A FUNCTION
OF BOTH AGENT
INTERACTION AND EXISTING
INTERNAL MODELS AND
SCHEMAS
Appendix H
EMERGENT GLOBAL
COMPLEX SYSTEM
BEHAVIOUR INVOLVES THE
AGGREGATE BEHAVIOUR OF
AGENTS
ORGANISATIONS ARE NONLINEAR, OPEN, AND FAR
FROM EQUILIBRIUM