1
Inner Complexity: Using Landscape of the Mind to catalyse
change in organisations
By
K. F. Hopkinson
BA Hons (Liverpool); MA (Centre for the Study of Management Learning, Lancaster
University)
Senior Research Associate, Complexity Research Group, LSE; Director, Inner Skills
Consultancy Ltd
All material, including all figures, is protected by copyright and should not be reproduced
without the express permission of the author.
ABSTRACT
Most social science research applying complexity principles concentrates on the
complexity of the external world. There has been relatively little work on the inner
complexity of human beings, and how this influences their behaviour in the world.
This chapter introduces a visual methodology called Landscape of the Mind (referred
to as LoM), which is designed to focus on these issues. Case studies and examples are
given to illustrate its practical applications and show how it can be used to catalyse
change in organisations, with particular reference to the implications for leadership and
innovation.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Introduction
Most social science research which applies complexity principles is an attempt to get to
grips with important aspects of the outside world. There has been much less emphasis
on the intrinsic complexity human beings bring to any situation, by reason of being
human.
Yet multifariousness and unpredictability of response is a key factor in human social
systems in general, and organisations in particular (look how often “human error” is
identified as a cause, when complex systems fail).
Landscape of the Mind (LoM) is a model and a methodology designed to take account
of our inner complexity (Shaw and Frost, 2015, p.638) and to illuminate how it interacts
with the complexity of the world around us. This in turn has significant implications for
management at all levels.
The concept of inner skills
We begin from the concept of inner skills. Every individual brings an extraordinary range
of inner gifts and qualities to every situation. These include experience, logic,
imagination, intuition, feelings and values. Somehow, we orchestrate all these intangible
competencies (Hailey, 2015) into coherent, if sometimes unexpected, action in the world
(hence, inner skills):
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
2
Diagram 1: What are inner skills?
Generally speaking, everyone is equipped with all inner skills, though we use them
differently.
On the basis of our research over 40 years, several characteristics of inner skills have
become clear:



There are significant individual, team and corporate differences in preferences.
Preferences are reflected in performance.
Some inner skills strategies seem to be much more enabling of some outcomes
than others. For instance, navigating successfully in uncertainty, complexity and
turbulence seems to depend on using more of some types of inner skills, rather
than others.
By preference being reflected in performance, I mean that if you know someone’s
pattern of inner skills preferences, you can usually make some quite good predictions
about where their time, energy and attention will go, and vice versa. This is probably
one of our most important findings, as it highlights the immense practical consequences
which follow from apparently nebulous, invisible inner activity.
What is unusual about LoM, is that, as well as using it to understand people, you can
also apply the concepts to work. Different tasks, projects, and jobs require a different
mix of inner skills to perform successfully.
This doesn’t mean there is only one “right” way to do something – on the contrary – but
there are sequences of inner skills which will not get you to where you want to go.
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
3
LoM is something you do with people, not to them (Argyris and Schon, 1989), so LoM
projects are collaborative explorations, out of which emerge chosen courses of action
which have been generated by, and are owned by, the participants. This is facilitated by
LoM providing a language and framework for exploring both what they are trying to do,
and what, dynamically, they are bringing to the task.
Different kinds of inner skills
Most everyday managerial work in all fields draws mainly on convergent and evaluative
inner skills. It involves collecting and organising facts and figures, and drawing logical
conclusions based on the evidence. It also involves talking and listening to others, and
having a drive to overcome obstacles and achieve outcomes.
By exercising these inner skills (and other related ones) appropriately, individuals and
organisations can achieve and sustain considerable success.
But there is one crucial criterion which must be met: for this kind of strategy to work, the
organisation’s operating environment needs to be relatively stable. The more turbulent
and unpredictable the environment, the less will a combination of convergent and
evaluative inner skills, support continuing success. Many highly successful companies
have gone out of business doing what they had always done best, because the fitness
landscape [ref. Kauffman] around them had changed. There is widespread recognition
of this – hence repeated calls for organisations to become more flexible, agile and
resilient.
But it is one thing to identify the need, and another to change behaviour to meet it. LoM
is very good at catalysing this shift in awareness and behaviour. Later in this chapter, I
will be presenting a number of case studies illustrating its use, but first we need to look
more closely at the model, and then the methodology.
The Landscape of the Mind (LoM) model
If we are interested in how to help organisations navigate in ambiguity and uncertainty,
and shape a future in a continually changing context, we need to understand and
mobilise another major type of inner skill, which we have, but largely do not value.
Convergent inner skills underpin working with what we already know and understand.
Evaluative inner skills enable us to make choices, judgments and decisions. But we also
come equipped with a whole range of inner skills for moving away from what we
currently know and understand, out into the unknown. We call these divergent inner
skills* (Hudson, 1966) - and we now know that they are crucial to navigating
successfully in turbulence.
Although we all arrive with these divergent inner skills (it’s hard to see how we could
accomplish growing up without them), they are not supported by our education system,
or the culture at large. So by the time most people are adult, they have learned not to
use divergent inner skills, and are often rather out of touch with these inner gifts.
*I do not use the concept of divergence in the same way that Hudson did, but I acknowledge his influence
on my work.
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
4
LoM can:
i)
ii)
iii)
Identify individuals and groups who are still in touch with their capacity to
diverge from the known
Help individuals and organisations to develop both competence and
confidence in doing this, by using divergent inner skills, and
Link them to the other dimensions of inner skills which are essential for
implementing ideas in a dynamic, constantly co-evolving process.
To capture the universe of possibilities of all the different kinds of inner skills which can
be brought to bear, we map them onto a globe. Just as with a geographical globe, by
drawing imaginary lines on the LoM globe, we can work out both where we are (in the
sense of which inner skills are in play at a particular time ), and agree where we want to
get to.
Our basic globe looks like this:
Diagram 2: Basic First Level globe
As you can see, as well as the distinctions between divergent, convergent and
evaluative inner skills, we also make another distinction, orthogonal to those, between
cool and warm inner skills. Cool inner skills (those above the “equator”) are detached,
and seem to stand on the outside looking in. Warm inner skills, on the other hand (those
below the “equator”) are emotionally engaged and on the inside looking out, as it were
[ref Cox, Hopkinson et al].
To close this section, here is another version of the LoM globe, populated with some
examples of behaviour which are primarily underpinned by each kind of inner skill:
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
5
Diagram 3: Colourkey Globe
The Profiling process
As a consultant working with organisations, it helps to have a simple method for
collecting a lot of useful data quickly, without putting heavy demands on the client. The
LoM electronic profiling process enables this. Triangulating the results with other
sources of information (Keskinen, AAltonen and Mitleton-Kelly, 2003, p.65-7) also allows
us to populate the LoM globe with actual examples from the client’s own story and
experience. This “grounds” the “theory” so it becomes real and relevant.
It is less the absolute scores and more the relative scores, the patterns of use in
practice, and the choreography with others’ contributions which are interesting and
helpful to people. This is why feedback is a face-to-face process where the meaning is
an emergent aspect of the conversation between participants and consultant.
The LoM globe and the profiling results usually make sense intuitively to participants,
sometimes after a little time to reflect, particularly when participants themselves begin to
give telling examples from the coal face. The LoM framework is then fairly readily
adopted and applied, sometimes more skilfully than others, of course.
Here are three First Level LoM profiles:
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
6
Diagram 4: Three first level profiles
The two on the left hand side are very common, in the sense that there are many
examples of patterns of strong preference for these inner skills on our database. The
one on the right, on the other hand, is very unusual: only a small proportion of profiles
on the database display the characteristic that divergent inner skills dominate.
But crucially, these are the people who navigate very easily and fluently in turbulence
and uncertainty, and who come up with sometimes radically novel ideas and solutions to
problems (I describe one striking example, Carole, later in the case studies section).
However, they don’t fit easily or comfortably in large organisations, and often either jump
or are pushed, especially when companies are trying to become leaner and meaner.
This results in the curious spectacle of these same organisations ramping up the
rhetoric about the need for flexibility, creativity, and innovation – at the same time as
they are divesting themselves of exactly the potential trail blazers and role models who
could have helped them achieve the changes they say they need and want.
First Level profiles provide an introductory, broad brush picture of the territory which
LoM covers. There is also another much more detailed analysis which puts a particular
pattern of inner skills preferences under a microscope, and brings into focus each
separate inner skill within each of the families of inner skills:
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
7
Diagram 5: Depth profile
Depth profiling is a very powerful tool, especially with senior executives, but limitations
of space will unfortunately prevent us exploring its applications and implications within
this chapter.
Lastly, here are answers to some frequently asked questions about LoM:
Points of clarification
 Everyone uses all the colours
 Applies to tasks as well as people
 Scale invariant – individual, team, organisation and ecosystem
 More is not necessarily better: it depends on what you are trying to do
 Preference is not necessarily the same as competence
 Divergence is not creativity, and scores are not comparable across the three
main LoM dimensions
 Warm blue scores do not reflect personal values
 Not all colours get on equally well
 Usage is context-dependent (reciprocal influence)
 Colours become relevant in different ways at different stages of a process.
What changes and what doesn’t
 Preferences are fairly stable over time
 But choices may change, as a result of
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
8

o developing competence in using non-preferred inner skills and in timing
contributions
o developing tolerance to allow others to use theirs
o changes in context enable people to use inner skills they haven’t felt able
to before.
Quite small changes in behaviour can have substantial practical benefits.
Landscape of the Mind in action - theory into practice
It has been said that there is nothing so practical as a good theory, but how do LoM’s
theoretical predictions compare with what we find on the ground?
Simply on the basis of the LoM model, it’s possible to predict that units and
organisations which are primarily focused on delivery (whether of products or services),
are likely to have cool gold, cool blue and warm gold as their dominant preferences. In
other words, the majority of their time, energy and attention will be devoted to producing
whatever they produce, to standard, on time and within budget.
This gives us what we call the Delivery pattern. “Improver” groups, on the other hand
(that is, units or groups tasked with bringing about innovation and significant change),
would be expected to show stronger preferences for the inner skills which underpin
those kinds of activities. This gives the Discovery pattern.
The discovery pattern includes all green inner skills, because these are the ones which
enable us to diverge from the status quo; plus warm blue because these inner skills are
implicated in having the courage to take personal risks, to stand up for what you believe
in, and trial new options.
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
9
Diagram 6: Operational management versus strategic change
Is this difference reflected in real organisations? Well, it certainly seems to be. Here is
an example, taken from the NHS as it is very easy to classify different groups into
primarily deliverers or discoverers.
Here are the rank ordered preferences for 130 senior managers in Acute Hospital
Trusts, with for contrast, the rank ordered preferences for the top 60 managers in the
NHS Modernisation Agency (since closed down). The Modernisation Agency was set up
to do exactly that – support innovation and modernise the NHS:
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
10
Diagram 7: Operational sample (Deliverers) versus Improvers sample (Discoverers)
In each case, the improvers sample’s preference for the inner skills involved in the
discovery pattern, is higher than for their colleagues in the delivery sample.
This is only the beginning of illuminating the not always comfortable dynamic between
these two groups / tasks, because there are potentially strong tensions inherent in the
juxtaposition of the delivery and discovery patterns. Here are a few indicators of where
the gremlins lurk:
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
11
Diagram 8: Inherent tensions between different inner skills strategies
The catch is that organisations need to be doing both at once, with the balance
progressively shifting further towards allocating more resources to discovery relative to
delivery, the more turbulent their operating environment becomes. But once the issues
of when and how to actually do this are opened up to constructive practical debate,
instead of an endless exchange of conflicting opinions (which themselves reflect
different patterns of inner skills preferences), progress can usually begin to be made.
Case studies and examples to illustrate the application of Landscape of the Mind
An easy way to engage participants with LoM findings, is to use rank ordered
preferences, mapped onto a globe. There are many other ways of interpreting LoM data,
especially at the Depth Level, but I am using rank ordered preferences here as they are
very accessible measures. Dominant preferences usually “run the show”, tending to take
up most of an individual or group’s time, energy and attention.
Here are two members of a senior team, who have “opposite” dominant preferences.
We can predict that they may find it hard to work together, even with good will on both
sides:
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
12
Diagram 9: Comparison of rank ordered preferences (AN and AW)
There will be a strong temptation for AN, whose top three preferences are all cool, to
regard AW as a time-wasting chatterbox, caught up in emotions and gossip; while AW
will likely see AN as cold, aloof, possibly arrogant and certainly not a team player. Being
able to look at their differences as a function of their inner skills preferences, and not
malice or insensitivity, is a good starting point to explore and discuss which other inner
skills sequences they could use, which might improve their working relationship.
Here is an example where the dominant preferences for a whole top team, are highly
discrepant with those of their new CEO:
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
13
Diagram 10: The New Broom
This kind of situation is common, when a new CEO has been brought in break up the
old ways of doing things, and bring about radical change. It often has predictable
consequences too, when the situation blows up completely and the new CEO leaves.
An expensive and time consuming maladaptive walk for all concerned.
But this outcome is not inevitable. Once everyone in the situation can see the gulf in
LoM terms, they can (and do) set about figuring out how to “bridge the gap” and work
successfully together (even if, as in this case, the team referred to their CEO as “The
Tornado” behind her back).
What about the reverse case? Here is a senior team and team leader where the
dynamics are quite different:
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
14
Diagram 11: Development Director and the regional centre managers – national not-for-profit
This too can be tricky to manage, but is much more likely to be successful if there can
be open and honest discussion of what it is like for participants. The regional centres
were a new venture for the organisation, so they needed directors who could innovate,
improvise and start something up from scratch. This is reflected in their higher than
average scores on divergence. But their boss’s two most dominant preferences are both
blue (evaluative). Strong “blue” preferences tend to shut down green divergence,
frustrating the divergers, and depriving the organisation of the innovation at the
periphery which it needs. This configuration risks the regional centre directors being the
direction-finders, with their boss always saying “no” and blocking needed innovation /
variation.
Incidentally, the LoM model is significantly “no blame”. It is not about the right way or the
wrong way; or the people who don’t see it as you do, being either mad or bad or both.
The relevant questions are about what we’re trying to do together, and what kinds of
inner skills patterns this will need to support it, to be assessed against what kinds of
sequences we’re currently using.
Inner skills patterns across management levels
Here is a slightly more complicated example, looking at the top three levels of a world
class commercial manufacturing company.
This organisation, although it was at pole position internationally in its field, recognised
that simply carrying on doing what it did best, was not going to save it, in a rapidly
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
15
changing fitness landscape. So there was good theoretical recognition of the need for
increased agility, flexibility, and innovation. Practically everyone was talking the talk. But
when we looked at the dominant patterns of preference for each of the top three levels
of management, this is what we found:
Diagram 12: Three levels of leadership
At each level, the pattern was different; but for all three levels, diverging from what they
were currently doing was not getting a lot of time, energy or attention, in spite of all the
aspirational rhetoric swirling around.
This raised serious questions about whether this group were well placed to lead the kind
of fundamental changes which they recognised intellectually they needed to design and
implement.
This in turn led to the incorporation of LoM workshops and profiling in their development
activities, both for senior executives and also for young high flyers.
Working with the less-than-thrilled
As already mentioned, LoM is an approach which you do with people, not to people. So
how does it work if the prospective participants are not keen? Here is a case study
about a global, world class, household-name company and their use of LoM to address
a strategic issue they faced.
The head of their IT function, Paul, was concerned that this side of the business risked
being out sourced. He saw this as having serious unintended consequences for the
company, as well as for the individuals concerned.
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
16
He then took an unusually fresh, thoughtful look at how his IT experts added value to
the company (his ability to do this is reflected in his own LoM profile). They themselves
assumed their value lay in their technical skills and leading edge software know-how.
But actually, their irreplaceable contribution lay in the quality of the relationships they
built with their internal clients, so that they became trusted advisors to line managers,
not just “fix-it” merchants and fire fighters when company systems went down.
And this was what would be lost if the IT function was out sourced.
So the challenge was to strengthen their capability to initiate and sustain these high
quality relationships, where they really understood the needs of the business and were
seen to, by their internal customers.
But many “techies” have difficulty seeing the value of what they regard as this touchy
feely stuff, and definitely don’t recognise it as fundamental to their work. In fact, we were
told that if we even used the word “relationships” in the title of the project, we’d be dead
in the water. It also became clear that, in some cases because of less than good
experiences in the past, they would be very resistant to individual profiling.
So at the front end, the project was described as being about “network development”,
and built around jointly exploring the aggregate LoM data, and mapping that onto their
work and how it was evolving.
Meanwhile, the scaffolding for the whole project was four goals which had already been
decided and which they had to meet anyway – so it wasn’t “extra” on top of what was
already going on, but an enabler for current commitments. This noticeably increased
participants’ motivation to take part.
In the first workshop, we presented the aggregate findings regarding LoM preferences
for the whole department
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
17
Diagram 13: Whole group (48 people) without Management Team and Head of Department
This exactly mirrored predictions, based on the demands of their jobs.
But we also showed aggregate figures for the management group in the department –
which were a bit different:
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
18
Diagram 14: IT Management Team (5 people) without Head of Department
The Head of Department had specifically chosen this group for their higher loading on
warm gold (the inner skills particularly implicated in relationships). This was simply
presented as information, but since they all knew this group, it wasn’t hard for them to
see the relevance, and the difference which this altered weighting made.
The final plank in the initial sub-project to gain credibility for the LoM model, was, with
his permission, to present the individual profile results for the Head of Department.
Again with his prior consent, this was introduced with the observation “so if you always
thought Paul was from another planet, you were absolutely right!”
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
19
Diagram 15: Head of Department’s rank ordered preferences
Since they had indeed thought this, as we unpacked what these differences meant on
the ground (Paul was present in the workshop), while there was a good deal of laughter,
there was also a dawning recognition that the methodology could accurately surface
important but intangible issues – as well as providing a language and a framework for
discussing them. And it could tell them something useful as well as intriguing, such as
how to manage their boss better.
It was at this point that the participants insisted they wanted their own individual profiles
– which then had to be built in to the project. Finally, the before and after measures by
an independent consultancy, did indeed show significant improvement on exactly the
relationship-building skills which the project had been set up to support.
Serendipitous research findings
Another characteristic of the LoM approach is that it can turn up completely unexpected
phenomena. Not just interesting oddities, but findings which may turn out to have direct
consequences for a company’s bottom line.
Here is one such case study. In the course of profiling a group of about 60 people
whose dominant preferences were strongly cool gold and cool blue, we noticed a few
outliers, who had more green in their profiles than the majority – and one in particular,
Carole, who had a significant loading on divergence.
Although not covered by the project, I arranged to give Carole feedback on her profile.
This was personally life-changing, as it not uncommonly is. Since the management team
in her department was familiar with the LoM model, I asked Carole if she was willing for
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
20
me to show them her profile. She agreed. The reaction of the management team was
interesting: they immediately recognised that here was someone with highly discrepant
preferences to most of their staff, and someone with something distinctive and important
to contribute – but they had no idea what to do with her.
This again, is common, even when the air is thick with exhortations about the need for
flexibility and innovation. I was able to suggest that they take her off the very run-of-themill stuff she was currently doing; give her a project no one knew how to do; and resist
the temptation to micro-manage her while she tackled it. So no fortnightly review
meetings, where she would have to account for how she’d spent her time, and which
sub-targets she’d hit.
When she thought she’d found something interesting, the idea was that she should put
herself on the agenda for a management team meeting, and come and tell them about
it.
That’s what they did. Within a matter of weeks, she had saved the company £1/4million.
The reaping of a substantial divergence dividend is not peculiar to this project. On the
contrary, it is a potential source of advantage which is present in most circumstances –
just unrecognised.
Conclusions
What we see repeatedly in our work is people, individually and collectively, largely
trapped inside their inner skills preferences, whether or not these reflect the real needs
of the situation. Using LoM is unlikely to change their preferences, but it often changes
the behavioural choices they make: they start to become “inner skills globetrotters”,
moving fluently and appropriately around the LoM globe, depending on task needs.
In the case of improving flexibility, agility, innovation and resilience, how might this help?
Well, it moves us beyond the generic descriptions, to look more carefully at what is
happening in a specific case, and hence what directions of movement might be
beneficial for this organisation, at this point in time, and in this operating environment.
The enquiry is thus grounded practically in present realities. At the same time fresh and
relevant adaptive walks are signposted, and the inner skills patterns which would
support them, identified.
Thus without relying on simplistic “answers”, LoM provides both a conceptual and
practical enabling environment for continuing co-evolution into a turbulent and
unpredictable future – a future perhaps a little less threatening when viewed through the
lens of LoM.
There is much further research to be done on the LoM methodology and its potential. I
hope this chapter will stimulate interest in doing it.
For those readers interested in learning more about the methodology, there is a film
about Landscape of the Mind which can be streamed free from www.innerskills.co.uk
and also from the LSE website. The film is in three parts. The first part introduces the
concepts and the model (including a small pilot study we carried out using fMRI brain
imaging, with the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience). The second part offers a wide
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
21
variety of case studies of real projects. And the third part consists of interviews with
users, about their experiences of LoM.
Of course, it is not just organisations which are struggling with the turbulence of our
times. So are governments and the international community. We have used LoM as a
lens ( ref ) to make sense of social ecosystems, and because it is visual and accessible,
perhaps it could in future make a small contribution to navigating successfully through
the uncertainties which face us all.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the help of the following people in the preparation of this
chapter: Suzanne Bramham, Simon Carruth, Duncan Frowde and Alexandra Hopkinson.
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015
22
References:
Argyris, C. and D. A. Schon (1989), ‘Participatory Action Research and Action Science
Compared. A Commentary: The Dilemma of Rigor or Relevance’, American Behavioral
Scientist. 32 (5), 612-623.
Cox, A., K. Hopkinson and M. Rutter (1981), ‘Psychiatric interviewing techniques II.
Naturalistic study: eliciting factual information’, The British Journal of Psychiatry. 138 (4),
283-291.
Hailey, J. (2015), ‘Rethinking NGO Leadership: Strategic Capabilities for the New
Future’, paper presented at an IMA International Event, New Economics Foundation, 24
June.
Hopkinson, K., A. Cox and M. Rutter (1981), ‘Psychiatric interviewing techniques. III.
Naturalistic study: eliciting feelings’, The British Journal of Psychiatry. 138 (5) 406-415.
Hopkinson, K. (2015), ‘Working with Inner Complexity’, film accessed 31 July 2015 at
www.innerskills.co.uk/film-introduction/
Hudson, L. (1966), Contrary Imaginations: A Psychological Study of the English
Schoolboy. London: Methuen.
Kaufmann, S. (1995), At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of SelfOrganization and Complexity, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Keskinen, A., M. AAltonen and E. Mitleton-Kelly (2003), Organisational Complexity.
Helsinki, Finland: Finland Futures Research Centre.
Lettice, F. and M. Parekh (2010), ‘The social innovation process: themes, challenges
and implications for practice’, International Journal of Technology Management, (51) 1,
139-158.
Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2011), ‘Identifying the Multi-Dimensional Problem-space & Cocreating an Enabling Environment’, in Andrew Tait & Kurt A. Richardson (eds), Moving
Forward with Complexity. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Complex
Systems Thinking and Real World Applications. AZ, USA: Emergent Publications, pp.
21-44.
Shaw, R. and N. Frost (2015), ‘Breaking out of the silo mentality’, The Psychologist, (28)
(8), 638-641.
My docs\complexity handbook\diamond integrated chapter\diamond integrated as of 11.12.15
© Kate Hopkinson 2015