Exploring Communication in Organizations Working as
Complex Adaptive Systems
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Pernill van der Rijt Author: Nicolas Klaus
Acknowledgements
I would like to extent my gratitude to a number of people without whom this research would not have come into existence.
First of all, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Dr. Pernill van der Rijt, who has guided me with guidance, very helpful comments and literature suggestions. I’m also grateful for her flexibility, commitment and responses even outside work hours.
Furthermore, I would like to thank my nine interview partners, who took the time to tell me detailed experiences about their work. The interviews have not only been interesting but also filled with valuable and inspiring information that I’m sure would be sufficient for at least one more thesis.
Staying with this one thesis for now, I hope it will be a pleasant and useful read. Nicolas Klaus
Abstract
This study explores communication themes that are relevant in organizations working as complex adaptive systems (CAS). Previous research suggests several relevant communication factors; these, however, have been mostly discussed in the context of other topics such as leadership or change management. The study at hand therefore conducted a qualitative research that included nine interview partners working in organizations that show strong characteristics of CAS. By using phenomenology as the method of analysis, eight communication themes were identified that were mentioned frequently within the interviews: (1) Shared goals, (2) Proactivity and Autonomy, (3) Leadership, (4) Competition and Cooperation, (5) Diversity, (6) Speed, (7) Transparency, and (8) Interconnectivity and Network Building. The findings suggest that these themes are in a close interplay that reinforces and enables one another. The findings of this research are by no means exhaustive. Further research, both qualitative and quantitative, could develop a more in depth understanding of the role of communication in complex adaptive systems.
Introduction
The 21st century has been marked by rapid technological progress, globalization,
and an ever-‐increasing growth of interconnectedness. As a consequence, there are little, if any, parts of society that have not turned significantly more complex. (Binde, 2005) Looking at organizations, scholars and business leaders alike are developing new approaches to deal with the more complex nature of our environment. On the other hand, increasingly more people have new expectations from the organizations they work in.
Complexity Theory has become an increasingly relevant subject for organizations. Originating in the physical sciences, complexity has caused a paradigm shift away from a world that was perceived in terms of linear relationships between causes and effects that can be understood through careful analysis; and away from a world that was perceived to be manageable by formalized control. Complexity thinking has brought unpredictability, non-‐ linearity and the refusal to adhere to the logic of classical sciences. Yet, the world still keeps spinning, still holds together and innovates faster than ever before. At
the core of complexity thinking lays the premise of self-‐organization, which has become an important and necessary part of the nature of work in the knowledge society. (Uhl-‐Bien et. al. 2007)
Numerous studies have applied complexity thinking and it’s basic premises such as self-‐organization, non-‐linearity and emergence to the broader field of organizational theory. The concept of communication, however, has received little explicit attention. This seems counterintuitive considering that a growth of interconnections does go along with a growth and variety of communication. The purpose of this study is therefore to explore communication factors that enable organizations to work effectively in a complex environment. The study at hand applied a qualitative approach. Nine interviews were conducted with professionals and executives of organizations that work in highly volatile environments that require the application of work methods in line with premises of complexity thinking.
The study firstly provides an overview over the origins of complexity thinking and about how complexity has been applied to analyze various topics of interest to organizations. Based on these information, the research will turn to a number of communication themes that seem relevant in the context of complexity. Subsequently, the study will elaborate on the personal experiences and opinions of the interviewees in order to gain insights about relevant communication themes.
Complexity
Until the mid 20th century, reductionism had been the primary approach to
understanding the nature of complex things. The world-‐view, as authorities such as Aristotle, Newton and Descartes promoted it, was based on the idea that the world works according to a deterministic set of rules that give rise to predictable events. Even though there are complicated problems, they can be understood by breaking them down into simpler parts. All real world truths are therefore the logical outcome of a linear relation between cause and effect. (Ruhl, 1996)
This worldview, however, engendered a growing dissatisfaction after discoveries such as Einstein’s theory of relativity, Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and quantum theory, which demonstrated that complex
problems are in fact not that predictable; by means of reduction or otherwise. The emerging conception of the physical world therefore began to conceive the nature of complex problems not just as a sum of if its components but rather as something that exists within all of the parts’ interconnections. (Ruhl, 1996)Hence, trying to understand a complex system or problem by analyzing its parts in isolation will not yield an accurate understanding of the system as a whole – much like there is little to learn about snow or avalanches by studying an individual snowflake. Ultimately, the mid 20th century discoveries led to a
paradigm shift in our understanding of the physical and the social world alike. (Maguire et. al. 2006)
A basic premise of complexity thinking is non-‐linearity, which means that small causes can have large consequences. In 1963, the popular meteorologist Edward Lorenz gave a popular example of non-‐linearity by questioning whether the flap of a butterfly’s wing in one region of the world could cause a hurricane in another. Lorenz thereby illustrated the implications of the chaos theory, which investigates the behavior of systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, such as the weather. (Maguire et. al. 2006)
A second and seemingly contradictory premise of complex system is their ability to self-‐organize. While their behavior may not possible to accurately predict, they still manage to achieve an emergent order that is not imposed by a centralized authority or force. Holland, 1996 describes complex systems as having a hidden order. Such self-‐organizing behavior can be observed in e.g. stock markets or immune systems. The term hidden order also reminds of the concept of the invisible hand in economic theory that describes social benefits that are emerging from the interactions of individuals in a free society.
In this context, some complexity scientists point out that self-‐organization has a level of subjectivity to it since it always requires an observer who defines what it means for a system to be “in order.” (Gershenson & Heylighen, 2003) Furthermore, complex systems are open systems that import energy or information from their surrounding. For this reason, they often cannot be clearly distinguished from their environment. (Maguire et. al. 2006) Despite of some level of ambiguity, complexity thinking has been of growing interest in various disciplines. Especially in the 21st century, that is characterized by an increasing
level interconnectedness, complexity thinking helps to better grasp the challenges and opportunities of what is called the knowledge society. (Binde, 2005).
Complexity and Organizations
Traditional approaches to organizational theory often perceived organizations as machines in which all parts fulfill separate purposes that can be understood through careful analysis. From this view, organizations consist of a prescribed set of rules, formalized control and hierarchical authority structures, which are supposed to simplify the organization’s operations and lead to predictable responses in a changing, yet knowable world. (Plowman et. all., 2007)
Organizations today, however, deal with a significantly more complex and competitive landscape that is driven largely by technological revolutions and globalization. (Uhl-‐Bien et. al. 2007) In the light of the unique challenges of the knowledge economy in the 21st century, complexity theory has emerged as a new
approach in organizational theory. Especially the concept of complex adaptive system (CAS) is being applied increasingly as a framework for discussing various aspects and types of organizations.
CAS are complex systems with the feature of being able to constantly revise and rearrange their building blocks as they gain experience. (Holland, 1992) As time goes by, the system’s parts evolve in a Darwinian fashion, improving their ability to survive in their environment while being bonded by a common purpose or outlook. (Uhl-‐Bien et. al. 2007) Applying complexity thinking to organizations does thereby not mean everything is unpredictable and thus there is no need for strategy and planning, it rather means that organizational strategy can evolve based on continuous feedback and change. Sherman and Schultz (2002), for example, recommend leaders to adopt a “try something and see what happens” mentality.
(Uhl-‐Bien et. al. 2007) have used complex adaptive systems theory as a framework for proposing a new approach to leadership. The authors suggest to perceive leadership as a “complex interactive dynamic from which adaptive outcomes emerge” (Uhl-‐Bien et. al. 2007, p.1) Rather than engaging in a top-‐ down, bureaucratic management style, the authors suggest that the challenges of
the 21st century knowledge economy are best tackled by leaders who focus on
providing the right environmental conditions in which self-‐organization can take place. This proposal for Complexity Leadership was further discussed by numerous other scholars such as Plowman et. all. (2007) who did empirical investigations on how leaders can enable emergent self-‐organization.
Styhre (2002) has applied complexity theory to propose a new approach to change management that considers the non-‐linear nature of the process. Styhre points to the shortcomings of traditional models for change such as the popular “unfreeze-‐change-‐refreeze” scheme suggested by Kurt Lewin that assumes a static context in which the organization operates. Instead, Styhre finds that change is better understood as a fluid, emergent series of events that is derived from a multiplicity of sources.
Complex adaptive systems have also been of growing interest in a number of industries such as health care. (Rickles et. al. 2007) Health care organizations (HCOs) often show phenomena, which are dynamic and unfold in unpredictable ways. Researchers can therefore incorporate complexity theory in the development of better research designs. McDaniel Jr. et. al. (2009) for example, argue that practitioners who understand HCOs as CAS will be more cautious in accepting findings from studies that treat HCOs mechanistically. The authors propose to “consider the concept of research design as a verb” (McDaniel Jr. et. al., 2009 p.9) and to constantly adapt to changing circumstances without trying to predict them.
Additionally, there are plenty of approaches to organizational thinking that share the premises of complexity thinking, while not necessarily using the same terminology. For example, the concept of Agile working and related methods such as SCRUM focus on short and iterative circles within product development, thus allowing for continuous adaptation based on feedback of stakeholders inside and outside of the organization. Built-‐in instability that allows emergent self-‐organisation within the project teams is another main characteristics of this approach. (Van Ruler, 2014)
Communication in Complex Adaptive Systems
Complexity theory has thus been applied to a number of areas relating to organizational theory. Yet, the role of communication has received rather little attention in the literature thus far; at least it has not been at the centre of previous research. This seems surprising considering the critical role of communication for organizations operating as CAS. According to Holland 1992, p. 4 any aggregate behaviour of a complex adaptive system “emerges from the interactions of [its] parts” or how Uhl-‐Bien et. al. 2007 p.11 put it: from the “spaces between” agents. When speaking of physical or biological systems, the term interaction certainly is appropriate but for social systems the concept of interaction may as well be called communication.
The subsequent sections discuss insights drawn from literature on corporate communication in relation to four basic premises of complex adaptive systems: (1) the existence of a common outlook, (2) pro-‐activity and autonomy of individual components, (3) interconnectivity, and (4) continuous change and adaptation. The goal is thereby to develop a more integrated approach to communication factors that are at work in organizations operating as complex adaptive systems. The concepts and theories discussed below are by no means exhaustive but shall rather provide an overview over some concepts and theories that seem of significance.
Shared Goals
As mentioned earlier, there is no form of centralized control in a complex adaptive system; instead the system’s aggregate behaviour emerges from the interactions of its components, and is bonded by a common purpose or outlook. (Holland 1992). This relates to research that stresses the factor of having shared goals in organizations and the need for alignment between the goals and interests of the organization and the goals and interests of individual members of that organization. Several authors suggest that shared goals prevent negative long-‐term consequences, especially in firms where individuals have high levels of freedom. (Campbell, 2000)
Chow and Chan (2008) found that shared goals significantly enhanced knowledge sharing in the organization they investigated. Similarly, Li (2005)
conducted a research including an organization’s HQ and its subsidiaries and found that the concept of shared vision was a strong influencing factor for effective knowledge transfer between the HQ and its subsidiaries. Numerous other studies also describe the positive effects of having shared goals or visions, which include increased organizational commitment, job satisfaction and communication satisfaction. (Haas & Sypher, 1992). Bennis and Nanus (1985) concluded that successful organizations result when members of the organization – from the leader on down – share the same vision or agenda.
Evidently, there is a consensus on the positive effects of having shared goals or visions. Yet, there is less of a consensus on how to actually define concepts such as vision, agenda, goal, mission and others, which are often used interchangeably. Furthermore, there is no consensus on how a shared goal or vision can be actively achieved.
Farmer et. al. (2009) suggest to define the processes of communicating vision in terms of the four classical public relations models outlined by Gruning and Hunt (1984): press agentry, public information, two-‐way asymmetrical and two-‐way symmetrical. Press Agentry and public information are both one-‐way communication models, thus conveying messages without enabling its recipients to give feedback. The main difference between the two is that press agentry relies on propaganda and hype, whereas public information aims to give accurate information about the organization. The two-‐way communication models, in contrast, allow for interaction between the recipient and the source of the message. From the asymmetrical two-‐way approach, management wants to know what employees think so they can be convinced more easily. The communication question for the symmetrical approach, on the other hand, is not focused on persuasion but on how genuine understanding and cooperation between management and employees can be achieved.
Li (2005) argues that symmetric two-‐way communication is most effective in reaching a shared vision in organizations. The results of their study suggest that flattened communication hierarchies and frequent exchanges of ideas between employees and leadership had positive effects in this regard. This is in line with other research on shared vision and goals. Paarlberg and Perry (2006) for example, compared different work-‐units inside an organization and
found that managers and employees in high-‐performing units repeatedly emphasized the importance of constant communication and dialogue when developing performance expectations and evaluating progress towards established goals. Similarly, Kewis (2000) suggests that vision is communicated as much in daily informal interactions among organizational members as in formal informational campaigns.
The two-‐way symmetrical approach to communicating vision thus appears to play a more significant role for organizations working as complex adaptive systems than the other models. However, even symmetric two-‐way communication as it is outlined in the existing literature in this context still focuses on a dialogue between a top (leadership) and a bottom (employees). From a perspective of complexity thinking one wonders if vision and goals are not even better described as constantly evolving from the interactions between all members of the organizations independently of their status, thus abolishing notions of top-‐down or bottom-‐up altogether.
Proactivity and Autonomy
In complex adaptive systems, individual components are self-‐governed and they act based on to their own set of rules, since there is no form of centralized control. (Holland, 1992) The previous section outlined the concept of common outlook as the primary factor that bonds CAS and that creates order within the system. Yet, no self-‐organization, or any emergent behavior for that matter, can occur unless components of a system, i.e. members of an organization, are engaging with their environment in a proactive manner.
This relates to a growing amount of research that addresses the topic of proactivity in organizations. Whereas in the past, a notable employee was perceived as an individual who executed the manager’s instructions full and consistently, the emerging view rather describes an ideal employee as someone who is “highly involved and committed, an independent contributor with initiative and a well-‐developed sense of responsibility”. (Campbell, 2000 p.6) The research on proactivity points to a multitude of interrelated factors that come together in causing pro-‐active behavior; the subsequent factors give a brief overview.
The theory of reasoned action (TRA) is a helpful approach for analyzing the causes of pro-‐active behavior in individuals. Reasoned action predicts that behavioral intent is created by two factors: (1) an individual’s attitudes toward a behavior and (2) his or her subjective norms. The more favorable the attitude toward a behavior, the stronger will be the individual’s intention to engage in the behavior. The second factor, subjective norm, describes what an individual thinks its surrounding wants him or her to do. (Chow & Chan, 2008)
Chow and Chan, 2008 have found that the people’s willingness to share knowledge (a form of being proactive) in an organization is significantly influenced by the extent to which they have the same goal as the organization. Similarly, the transformational model of leadership suggests that employees who are sharing a leaders vision are willing expend exceptional effort in executing their perceived role. (Campbell, 2000) The relationship between proactivity and shared goals or visions therefore seems to be reciprocal: the ability to proactively contribute to a vision makes people more likely to develop a sense of ownership for the vision (as discussed above) and feeling a sense of ownership for the vision increases people’s intention to behave proactively, at least with regards to knowledge sharing.
The role of trust has been investigated by a number of studies as another factor that facilitates people’s willingness to behave proactively. Huang (2012), for example, found a positive relation between trust and feedback-‐seeking behavior, a form of proactivity. The author argues that employees who seek feedback are putting themselves at risk by sharing sensitive, potentially ego-‐ damaging information about work problems, or by exhibiting inefficiency. Trust increases the likelihood that a trustor accepts showing vulnerability and engages in more risk-‐taking behaviors. This reasoning could be extended to other types of proactive behavior since any form of taking initiative may involve some perceived risk and potentially the exposure to a judgmental environment.
The second factor outlined by TRA is subjective norms, which in regards to encouraging proactive behavior can constitutes the communication of the norm that proactivity is, in fact, a desirable or expected behavior. Some studies found that an environment in which it is expected to behave proactively, and in
which individuals are demanded to fulfill new tasks that require taking initiative, is positively related to a higher level of proactivity. (Campbell, 2000)
Campbell (2000) suggests that organizations should leverage employee proactivity through fostering network building in organizations, by encouraging cross-‐functional integration and fostering a climate that values collaboration and open communication. The theme of network building and interconnectivity will be elaborated on in more depth subsequently.
Interconnectivity
Complex adaptive systems are often described as a continuous negotiation between order and disorder (Uhl-‐Bien et. al. 2007) This negotiation is reflected in the degree to which the system’s parts are interconnected. While CAS obtain the flexibility to adapt from a loose coupling of parts, their ability to coordinate derives from a more interdependent structure. Hence, the actions of individual actors are dependent on or limited by others in some ways, but they still have the freedom to respond autonomously to changes in their environment. Self-‐ organization and emergent changes in the system evolves out of this negotiation between freedom and dependency. (Uhl-‐Bien et. al. 2007)
For organizations working as CAS this poses the question of how and to what extent organizational members should be interdependent in order to facilitate their capability to self-‐organize towards a common goal. A helpful approach to analyze interdependency is provided by cooperation theory, developed by the social psychologist Morton Deutsch, which distinguishes interdependency in terms of how individuals and groups see how their goals are interrelated. Deutsch primarily distinguishes between positive and negative interdependence, and independence. (Tjosvold, 1986)
Positive interdependence (cooperation) exists when people perceive that their goals are positively related: a movement toward one’s goal also facilitates the goal of someone else. Negative interdependence (competition) exists when people see their goals negatively related: a movement toward one’s goal interferes with and makes it less likely that someone else will reach their goal. Independence exists when people’s pursuit for their goals neither interferes nor facilitates the goals of others. It may also occur that individuals and groups
simultaneously have positively and negatively linked goals, and independent goals. For example, team members may have the shared goal of completing a project. Yet, individual members of the team want to appear the brightest in front of their client. Hence, the project involves both positively and negatively linked goals for individuals. In this case Deutsch suggests that social interaction depends on the goals people consider most important. (Tjosvold, 1986)
As a consequence, the nature of interconnectivity is influenced by how people perceive their interdependencies. In cooperation, people are more prone to aiding and supporting each other in their pursuit of mutual goals. Positive interdependence (cooperation) has also been associated with promoting trust and the expectation that the people’s surrounding will assistant them. People in negative interdependence (competition), in contrast, recognize that other’s success threatens their own ambitions. Out of this situation rises the expectation that others will not help them, which makes people reluctant to discuss their needs and feelings or ask for or offer support. Thus while team internal competition may not bad in every instance, a meta-‐analysis of over 100 studies found that positive interdependence, rather than negative interdependence or independence, resulted in higher productivity and proactivity for most tasks, especially if they require pooling effort and sharing information. (Johnson et al 1981)
Some studies suggest that cooperative relationships can further be improved through informal communication that is based on interpersonal interaction, rather than through mediated channels such as newsletters (Samsup & Shim, 2005). This notion of facilitating cooperation through direct dialogue echoes the two-‐way communication approach discussed above and the suggestion to create flat communication hierarchies in order to create effective self-‐organization towards shared goals in organizations. It also demonstrates that above discussed concepts such as trust, pro-‐activity and shared goals are highly interrelated.
Adaptive Change
Research outlined above suggested that cooperative interaction has a positive effect on important concepts such as trust and proactivity. However, complex
adaptive systems also benefit from some forms of conflict between actors in order to facilitate moments of non-‐linear change. According to Uhl-‐Bien et. al. (2007) the ability for adaptive change in organizations working as CAS is produced by existing but (seemingly) incompatible ideas, knowledge and technologies. E.g. two interdependent individuals are debating conflicting perceptions until there is a non-‐linear “aha moment”. Individuals therefore need to be in a system that gives them sufficient freedom to express their views and sufficient dependency on other individuals to be required to debate these views in order to achieve a mutual goal. (Holland, 1992)
Traditionally it has been the goal of organizations to increase order and formal control, thinking in terms of complexity, however, it may be necessary to move away from stability in order to evoke the kind of adaptive tensions that give rise to adaptive change. (Plowman et. all., 2007) suggests that leaders could facilitate this process by intentionally creating disorder and thus more diverse interactions between organizational members. Similarly, work methods such as SCRUM provide “inbuilt instability” in order to encourage innovative solutions. (Van Ruler, 2014)
The potential for non-‐linearity and adaptive change can further be enhanced by a greater diversity among organizational members. Styhre (2002) relates to several studies that suggest how diverse teams may be more innovative and creative in completing their tasks. (Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006). Other studies show that diversity reduces groupthink and may lead to more extensive and more original processes of idea generation. (Hofhuis et. al., 2013). Diensbach et. al. (2007) have argued that when the opportunity arises to voice different viewpoints, the presence of deviant opinions may increase creative thinking and may encourage team members to be more alert and critical in their evaluation of problem solving strategies. On the flip side, diversity has been associated with a number of threats such as the perceived threats of majority group members to loose status or influence, or the perceived threat of loosing a group’s identity. (Hofhuis et. al., 2013)
Several studies studies suggest that diverse interconnections may be the source of communication difficulties, which is why communication skills may be
an important aspect of group member’s ability to process diverse information. (Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006)
Methodology
The goal of this study is to get a better understanding of the role of communication for organizations working as complex adaptive systems. Previous literature already suggested several communication themes that are of relevance, however, these have mostly been discussed in the context of other research topics, such as leadership or change management (Uhl-‐Bien et. al. 2007), or they have not been explicitly linked to complexity theory. Furthermore, existing knowledge about the characteristics of CAS in organizations is often not fully established empirically but derived from research on complexity originating in the natural sciences. (Plowman et. all., 2007)
The research at hand therefore used a qualitative approach to gain further insights about the role of communication for organizations working as CAS and to find which of the existing theories are supported by the results of this study.
Data Collection
Nine interviews were conducted with professionals and executives of organizations that are showing strong characteristics of complex adaptive systems. They all operate in volatile environments that allow for little long-‐term planning and thus have to work flexibly. Furthermore, all organizations are highly interconnected both internally between individuals and departments, and externally with stakeholders and their environment. By nature, their employees are required to take initiative, be proactive and continuously adapt to changing environments without being micro-‐managed in their behavior.
Organizations were chosen through purposive sampling, which is in line with comparable research and allowed for the inclusion of interview partners who were judged to be most relevant to the purpose of this study. (Groenewald, 2004) Target organizations operate in three industries: consulting, technology and innovation, and the creative industry. Included were start-‐ups as well as established medium-‐sized companies and large multinational corporations.
While all organizations have quite distinct features they do share the above mentioned characteristics and were thus judged relevant for this research. The study included individuals working at two international management consultancies, two technology start-‐ups, one consultancy specialized on early stage start ups, one large and one medium sized technology company and one creative agency developing media formats.
Interview partners were occupying different positions within their organizations, which allowed for the comparison of diverse perspectives on the role of communication in CAS. All interview partners were well connected within their organizations and interacted frequently with their colleagues and outside stakeholders. At the time of the interviews, which occurred between October 2015 and January 2016, they were based in either central Europe or North America. Of the nine interviewees, three were female and six were male.
The interviews ranged from 45min to 1 hour and were conducted in person or via phone/Skype; either in German or in English language. German interviews were subsequently translated into English. Questions followed an interview guide that reflected the relevant communication themes identified in the theoretical part above. Despite of the in advance prepared questions, interviews were kept open and occurred on a conversational basis that allowed for the necessary flexibility to elaborate on relevant topics as they emerged during the interviews. The interview guide did therefore serve merely as a loose framework for the conversations. In order to avoid confusion about the terminology, questions included associated terms that are more commonly used rather than the term “complex adaptive system”. Conversations therefore revolved around key sensitizing concepts and basic premises of CAS such as self-‐ organization, emergence, flexibility and other themes that directly relate to the research question.
With the permission of interviewees conversations were recorded on an audio device and subsequently transcribed. German interviews were translated into English. Outlining the purpose and nature of the study and providing participants with an informed consent form that they signed ensured an ethical research.
Data Analysis
As mentioned in the above sections, complex adaptive systems are open systems that cannot be distinguished from their environment. Furthermore, any form of self-‐organization requires an observer who gives meaning to the concept by defining properties such as order or disorder. (Gershenson & Heylighen, 2003) This brings a degree of subjectivity to complexity research and the need for the interpretation of events. Especially in this study, there is a strong focus on individuals’ subjective experiences, which, combined, shall give insights into how communication themes are facilitating complex adaptive systems that advance a pre-‐defined purpose of the organization.
In order to analyze the interview data, phenomenology was chosen as the method of analysis. Phenomenology is concerned with understanding social and psychological phenomena from the perspectives of the people involved. (Groenewald, 2004) In the broadest sense, the method refers to people’s perception of the meaning of an event, as opposed to the event as it exists externally. It therefore allows the investigation of people’s lived experiences by capturing rich descriptions of phenomena and their settings. (Groenewald, 2004) Phenomenologists believe that the researcher cannot be detached from his or her personal presuppositions and should not pretend otherwise. It is therefore necessary to “bracket out” any presuppositions in order to confront data so that no position is taken either for or against. Doing so, the researcher attempts a deliberate and purposeful opening to the phenomenon in its own right with its own meaning (Groenewald, 2004)
In a second step, statements made during the interviews that are perceived to illuminate the researched phenomenon are isolated. This is determined by considering the number of times particular statements regarding the phenomenon were mentioned both explicitly as well as implicitly. Common themes or trends within the interviews are identified and grouped into units of meaning for further analysis. (Groenewald, 2004)
Findings
While the interviews yielded a diversity of statements, there were eight themes that were frequently mentioned and that provided insightful descriptions and
reflections. The eight themes are: (1) Shared Goals (2) Autonomy and Proactivity (3) Leadership (4) Competition and Cooperation (5) Diversity (6) Speed (7) Transparency (8) Interconnectivity and Network Building. The themes help to illuminate how organizations behave effectively as complex adaptive systems, i.e. to display emergent self-‐organization, to be highly adaptive and to utilize non-‐ linear effects as means for change and adaptation. While some concepts are more explicitly related to CAS and communication than others, they all are highly interconnected and thus tie into one another.
Shared Goals
There was a consensus among respondents that sharing the same goal, or having different goals that are closely aligned, is critical for enabling effective self-‐ organization. During the interviews, respondents gave several examples for how their organizations benefit from shared or aligned goals, and what factors can enhance goal-‐alignment. The COO of Management Consultancy 1 gave a particularly telling account of how their whole organizational structure adapts depending on what is needed to achieve their goal, which is client satisfaction:
Client comes first. No matter how old you are, no matter what your professional background is, no matter how senior you are. The only thing that counts is how much value you can add. And if you are able to lead because you speak the language or because you know the industry or because you have a special contact then you will automatically have the whole organization behind you. […] Suddenly you’re a Senior Associate and you have one of the Partners doing your groundwork. (COO, MC 1)
He further described that employees are able to work with an exceptional level of freedom and can choose the projects they want to join and also at what time and location they want to work. Formal control and hierarchies are kept at a minimum. According to the COO, an external consultant, after having visited the organization, coined the term “liquid structure” to describe their approach of working “without hierarchy in the classical sense and without any reporting lines.” Restraints and freedoms of organizational members are therefore not
coming from their management but are rather derived from the requirements of individual projects. Having all organizational members focused on the same goal thus makes the need for rigid corporate structures in the traditional sense obsolete and enables forms of emergent self-‐organization.
The COO furthermore described how new hires are occasionally expecting more order, predictability and processes and are thus uncomfortable with the level of flexibility that is required from them. In these cases, it is the organization as a whole that “rejects [them] like a foreign body. They are automatically not getting involved in projects that much.” Therefore, there is no need for management to supervise or monitor individuals. It rather is the entire organization that, in pursuit of a shared goal, structures itself. This example reminds of Holland (1992) who, as mentioned above, describes CAS as evolutionary systems, consisting of parts that evolve in a Darwinian fashion while being bonded by a common outlook.
Similarly, other respondents described that shared goals are important for bonding a team, for facilitating commitment and for decreasing the need for formal control.
Definitely, pressure can work. But the pressure should come from a shared goal you all have and not because someone tells you so. (DSM, SU Consultancy)
Respondents also mentioned how having shared goals facilitate the process of aligning personal interests with the needs of the organization. A recruiter at Tech Start Up 2 described how she was “sold into the vision of the company” already before she was hired and thus feels a strong motivation for seeking opportunities to combine her interests with the broader objectives of the organization.
When you already resonate with their [the organization’s] vision then your own personal vision is not going to be that much different. For example if you look at my goals for the quarter, they’re more on the company side than on the personal side. I’m of course interested in my personal development but I feel like contributing to the company goals will also help me. (Recruiter, SU 2)
Several factors that facilitate developing shared goals were mentioned during the interviews. In Tech Start Up 2, all new hires receive equity in the company in order to increase a sense of ownership for the company and its goals. Other respondents described goal-‐alignment as an interactive process based on two-‐ way, or rather: multi-‐way communication.
Several respondents stated that they feel in close proximity to the goal of the organization because they receive constant feedback about how their actions influence a goal. This therefore enhances a sense of ownership. In Management Consultancy 1, for example, people involved in a project have the opportunity to be in direct touch with clients and they get to know even highly confidential information about projects. Furthermore, decisions are usually based on consensus rather than on authority, which allows even less experienced employees to have a voice.
There can always be a discussion. You would not be just overruled. Just if in doubt about what is best for the client one would choose to go with the decision of the partner with his 15 years of experience. (Consultant, Management Consultancy 1)
Other respondents also described the importance of being involved in the decision-‐making process, independently of one’s formal status, as a factor to enhance a sense of ownership for the goal of the organization.
The whole team needs to be involved with the whole thing, with all stakeholders. So even if you’re just a junior designer you’re sitting there talking to your stakeholders. (DSM, SU Consultancy)
Management also approaches us and asks “does this make sense?” and they are genuinely interested. (Account Strategist, Tech Corporation)
We recently went through a round C funding, which is usually very confidential. Leadership is not required to share any of that process with their employees but
one of our values is transparency and our CEO certainly lives up to it. (Recruiter, Tech Start Up 2)
Proactivity and Autonomy
Respondents repeatedly stressed the importance of autonomy and proactivity, which are closely related to having shared goals. The above section already touched upon the nexus of autonomy, proactivity and shared goals by outlining how project teams are able to work in self-‐organizing ways without formal control. Having shared goals does thereby increase individuals’ sense of ownership towards a subject, which lets individuals pay more attention to their coworkers and give feedback if necessary, which is a form of proactivity. Out of this interplay, a dynamic evolves that could be called decentralized control: “People will tell you straight into the face: ‘you’re the one who’s slacking’” (DSM, SU Consultancy)
Other respondents described how autonomy and proactive behavior makes members of the organization seize opportunities to improve existing processes or to initiate new projects that tie into the broader agenda of the organization:
I really wanted to do trainings, to train people on how to interview better. So that was part of my personal goal, which was not on my managers list of things she wanted the team to do. But then you also know how that ties into us being a better company (Recruiter, Tech SU 2)
I’m very proactive and I actually initiated most of my projects. I had an idea and said I would like to do this. (Account Strategist, Tech Corporation)
Individuals that are able to work autonomously and that behave proactively while being bonded by a shared goal therefore constitute are the main building blocks of a self-‐organizing system.
Respondents further suggested a variety of factors that enhance proactive behavior. A consultant at Management Consultancy 1, for example, described that having a high level of autonomy enables people to find their areas of
