Complexity, Innovation, Knowledge and Learning: A quantum interpretation of management

Complexity theory: where are we?

Last week I participated in the fourth Organization Studies Summer Workshop titled "Embracing Complexity: Advancing Ecological Understanding in Organization Studies", in Pissouri, Cyprus. If interested, I presented a paper titled: The ecology of management: Cassandra, a holistic diagnostic for sustainable performance. One of the keynote speakers was Frederick Turner, and he gave a wonderful overview of the state of the art of complexity, that I want to share with you.

Complexity gives a new view on causality.  It re-introduces freedom, since the universe is not fully deterministic. Keep in mind that unpredictable does not mean unintelligent. Since freedom regains its importance in science, choice, intention and purpose become real issues. Choice might not be so mysterious as we have made it.

Feedback became the norm. Material qualities and abstract physical laws are consequences of feedback and not the other way round. Even based on positive feedback, complex systems can be very robust. Positive feedback is in no way less robust than negative feedback. Unpredictability is a matter of survival.

We have a new concept of time: time will not go away. Classical science has always made an attempt to rationalize away time. Time is irreducable and irreversible, which gives birth to emergence.

We have a new ontology of recognisable shapes. We have understanding of a new class of shapes: fractals, strange attractors, etc. (in between shapes, strange, entangled, but beautiful shapes). New shapes allow for new questions to be asked.

We have strange attractors instead of dualism. Function and purpose become central issues. The strange attractor (a fractal form) is an ideal form.  New species are strange attractors.  Are values to be considered something different than strange attractors?

Modelling, eventually, needs new tools, that go above and beyond observations, hypotheses, testing, etc. Non-linear dynamic modelling, or fractals, and the like allow to play around with the interactions and to see when and how we visualize reality.  But we still have to learn how to use these tools.

Finally, Turner asked a few questions that I am glad to repeat:

1. What is the role of emotions in the new science (are they the drivers? are they strange attractors?)
2. What is the role of aesthetics?
3. Does promising makes determinism (or is it freedom?)
4. How does intention change the brainstructure?

All these facts and questions, management research has ignored asking for years. But more and more management researchers are concerned with understanding reality.

Knowledge Management needs a different philosophical perspective

I have started again with my most favorite course (Knowledge management and management learning: the biology of business) that I am doing together with my wife Erna. For the students, the first few powerpoints are available on the readings page. At the same time I have taken over from a colleague the fundamental in Management in Complexity, a course that I have been doing for a number of years but stopped a few years ago.  In fact, my book "Organisational learning and knowledge technologies in a dynamic environment"  (1998) was the first version of my course book. It has evolved ever since.

I understood better that knowledge is less of a technological matter (though that was already argued in that book).  It is more about the purpose of business, the network of cooperating people (that are willing to share and co-create) and above all of a different philosophical perspective.

I can suggest a very interesting article in that respect of Ed Weymes (Waikato Management School): A challenge to traditional management theory.  According to him, the historic and possibly arcane purpose of business, to maximize shareholder wealth, is no longer a relevant proposition.  It is according to him timely to reflect on the purpose of business as adding value to society and rejecting the focus on accumulation of personal wealth.

Knowledge-creating enterprises (according to Ed) are founded on the development of sustainable relationships within the organisation and with stakeholders and thus require a different philosophical perspective.

Cracking the complexity code

The McKinsey Quarterly featured an interesting article "Cracking the complexity code".  The article argues that simplification is out, and does not necessarily reduce costs (as often claimed).  For those who did not know yet, interesting to read.  The paper is authored by Heywood, Spungin and Turnbull.

Video lectures on complexity

A site with video lectures on complexity is available, within the wider frame of a general video lectures site. This is worth to have a look at.

A-causality: a quantum ontology for complex systems

I have posted my presentation for the Stellenbosch Workshop on Philosophy and Complexity, in the reading section of this blog.  You can read "A-causality: a quantum ontology for complex systems" if you would be interested.

Complexity: the science of paradoxes

Last week I participated in a Workshop on Philosophy and Complexity at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Studies. Interesting meeting between people of different background and interest, that always inspires me a lot.  Though it was hardly discussed, I again observed that complexity is probably the science of paradoxes. Here are some:

1. Hierarchies exist, but they are not really helpfull and they are not de-composable. Might this be an ethical issue ?

2. An attractor is stable, but the process itself from the one to the other attractor is not. Though a "particle" seems stable, it is a highly dynamic existence. Isn't there an interesting role for diversity in there ?

3. Everything contains identity and difference.  It is just a matter of choice. Does identity need constraints ?

4. While (or when or if) determinism is not a choice, causality is.

And this latter one gave a lot discussion/confusion.  Seemingly different people understand determinism and causality different (interesting!). For me, determinism is opposite to randomness.  And when I look into a philosophical encyclopedia, they even are not clear.  Anyway, for me complexity is still deterministic and that means it is not random (otherwise, we could as well stop everything right away).  However it is "a-causal", a term I take from Pauli. A-causal means there is no longer a causal relationship (from cause to effect) but rather a coincidence (occuring at the same time). Of course this calls on concepts such as synchronicity, entanglement and non-locality. Indeed it is a "quantum interpretation" (more about it in my book), but above all, the big difference between causal and a-causal is probably "time".  In a causal relationship, there is time necessary between cause and effect.  In an a-causal relationship, there is synchronicity.  We did not get out of that discussion, but it is certainly worth a second thought.

Sarkozy once said that capitalism at least did not make victims

He said that a while ago, in the middle of the US and UK bombing campaign on Irak. It is one of these moments that you wonder whether politics is important, or indeed it is nothing more than a theater play.  I am sure that he was only partly informed and now that we know that we have on a daily basis hundreds of innocent citizens killed in Bagdad, he would certainly not say that anymore. Madeleine Albright invented an interesting term for innocent citizens killed in war: collaterale damage.

In France, a few days ago someone committed suicide, an engeneer of the technical development center of Renault in Guyancourt. One of the trade unions declared that it had to do with the fact that Renault does not evalute the work of people, but rather the person himself. It did not have to do with work pressure only, but rather with mental pressure. It was not the first suicide in that particular factory.

In France, more than 50% of the people do not like their job.  In Norway, 15% of the workforce is absent due to "illness".

A week ago, the stepfather of little 3 year old Julien committed suicide after been questioned during more than 12 hours, suspected from the disappearance of Julien.  Ever since nothing has been heard from Julien, and official sources fear for his life. The same sources now declare that the stepfather has most probably nothing to do with the disappearance. I hope he killed himself in the knowledge that at least his new wife trusted him.

In line, I commemorate the soccer referee that got killed in riots with so called soccer fans in Italy in the night of the 2nd of February. Our economic system at least doesn't make victimes, or does it?

And then I stand in front of a class of young promising future managers, bright and creative kids, that have the possibility to go different about the future of our economic system. Most of them, however, are so much part of the economy we have created, that they can only try to zap from one station to another, also in class. They zap between courses, they zap during the course between the teacher, their friends, messages on their computer or mobile phone, etc. The world seems boxed in a TV screen; the world passes by as in a movie. I am glad to see that an growing minority (or did it become in the mean time a majority) is increasingly aware of the environment (and I do not mean only nature) that we are alltogether co-creating.

Pirsig (Zen and the art of motor cycle maintenance) wrote that while being seated in a car, the world passes by as if you are watching a TV.  On a motorcycle, the rider is part of the environment.  You smell it, you feel it, you are making it while driving through.

When can we finally understand that the world is just complex, and instead of understanding that, we only do everything to make it complicated. We look for causalities that do not exist and in order to prove our right, we create those causalities eventually ourselves. It is good to see that our politicians are confident at least.   

Concepts on Complexity in French

One of my students (Aline Birnbaum) has finished a nice piece of work (in French) on the most important concepts of Complexity Theory. For those who would be interested.

Complexity and language

An interesting article about complexity and language: "The mosaic of language", to give yet another angle on complexity.