Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
T
his paper begins the development of a practical mathematical theory of
human organizing forms that can be used to inform social innovation. As
a foundation for this undertaking, we further develop a model of social
entrepreneurship recently proposed by Goldstein et al. (2010). The GHS model,
as it will be called throughout the remainder of this paper, purports to describe
how social innovations can emerge as a means to qualitatively change social
processes. Presumably, the unfolding of a game-changing social program such
as successful public health initiatives to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS would
be an example of such a social innovation. The hope is that eventually positive
social change processes like these, and the particulars of their success, can be
modeled rigorously to inform future interventions.
The GHS systems model (based on an entrepreneurship model originally de-
scribed by Goldstein et al., 2010) uses mathematical results from differential to-
pology, and in particular, singularity or bifurcation theory (Arnold, 1989; Thom,
1989; Zeeman, 1977). The model is general in its treatment of topologically dis-
T
he GHS model describes how changes in the environment combine with
the rules of interaction in the system to change the patterns or forms
wherein organizing unfolds. Swanson & Zhang (this issue) provide exam-
ples of this phenomenon. They describe how various forms of social enterprise
organizing might occur differently in the face of changing legal forms. Likewise,
Shepherd & Woods (this issue) describe the emergence of the ideal of learned
“digital citizenship” as an organizing principle for a childhood education social
enterprise in the face of a changing technology landscape. Baker et al. (this is-
sue) describes the formation of social network hubs or “spaces” as enablers of or-
ganized social action in Australian communities. These examples demonstrate
the salience of the coarse-grained effects that characterize social innovation.
What is missing is a theory to describe the mechanisms that enable organizing
forms to emerge and be selected. This paper addresses this gap.1
The GHS model avers that profound change occurs when certain changes in the
environment or ecology—the “shape” of the container constraining the system
within an ecological niche—apply or relieve pressure on the choices and actions
of individuals that are part of the system, thus changing the rules of interaction
in a particular way. Changes to the rules of interaction are caused by tensions
inside the system, including the implicit impact of each individual’s memories,
preferences, and networks of relationships (Hazy et al., 2007). Other “ingredients”
in the container include available resources and knowledge. This amalgam is
1. To begin to describe how organizing unfolds, the argument first takes as a given, that
human organizations can be represented a complex adaptive systems (CAS) and that the
interactions that occur within these systems can result in emergent properties at the aggre-
gate level (Holland, 1975, 2001). The fine-grained process whereby interactions among indi-
viduals lead to emergence of cooperative action has been discussed elsewhere (Hazy, 2006,
2007, 2008a,b). The fine-grained process is clearly a subject that needs additional study, but
except as reverenced, is beyond the scope of this paper.
2. The choice of terms is to emphasize the dynamical nature of the form as well as distinguish
this idea for the more traditional concept of an organizational form, which tends to be more
legalistic and institutional in its usage (Hannah & Freeman, 1989).
3. Topology is the field of mathematics that studies properties of geometric forms that re-
main invariant under continuous deformations such as bending and stretching. Differential
topology in particular is concerned with shapes that are differentiable. A topological space
is a set, X, for example the set of all organizing forms, together with what is also called “a
topology” which is the set of subsets, r, of X, that are being considered such that the empty
set and whole set are both included in r, any union of elements of r is also in r, and any finite
intersection of sets in r is also in r. A topological space can have multiple topologies.
4. Interested readers should explore the implications and limitations of the Linearization
Theorem in a dynamical systems text such as Hirsch et al. (2004)
T
he statistical complexity (Crutchfield & Feldman, 1997) of an observed phe-
nomenon—or following Gell-Mann (2002) what we will call “effective com-
plexity”—means that a model can predict the statistical behavior of un-
folding events at the coarse-grained or aggregate level. Modeling at this higher
level of analysis avoids the shortcomings of other computational complexity
procedures which would attempt to reproduce the details of fine-grained re-
5. In this fine-grained approach to computational modeling, systems are more and more
complex as they get more and more difficult to predict, reaching their maximum measured
complexity when one attempts to model purely random systems (Crutchfield & Feldman,
1997; Prokopenko et al., 2009) in which case, the most economical model of the system is
the system itself.
Model of a Property
Human Human
Interaction Interaction
Dynamics Dynamics
A B
Figure 1 The emergence of system properties exerts downward influence on
human interaction dynamics, a process that is synchronized through models
built by individuals to inform their choices and actions. Panel A shows the
interacting elements of an organizing form that characterizes an HID system’s
functioning. Patterns emerge from human interaction dynamics; these
are observed, modeled by, and are shared among, individual participants;
as events are predicted by the models, the modeling influences the HID in
anticipation of events and thus impacts the emergent properties in a complex
feedback process. Panel B shows how a property is modeled by defining
random variables and predicting the relationships between their values. These
models inform individual choice and action which in turn impacts HID and the
resulting emergence of system level properties, which are then modeled, and
on and on, recursively. A stable set of properties together with the models that
enable them to emerge constitutes an organizing form.
and exert mutual influence. When the properties of a system are predictable—
implying the variables and relationships among them as indicated in Figure 1
Panel B are predictable—and when a small perturbation or push on the system
is such that the system maintains the same organizing form and therefore re-
mains predictable under the same model, then the system’s properties and its
organizing form also exhibits a degree of stability6.
6. Stability is defined differently in dynamical systems theory (Hirsch et al., 2004): a system is
said to be stable if upon a small perturbation, the system’s new trajectory remains arbitrarily
close to it’s previous one. This definition is narrower than that in the main text because it re-
fers to the dynamical system model itself and not to an observed phenomenon or property
in HID. For our purposes, the dynamical systems definition can be interpreted as what is
necessary to imply that the model being used is stable, a necessary but not sufficient condi-
tion for the properties themselves, the subject of the model, being called stable.
Where X is the internal state of the system as defined by some random variable
such as profitability, the parameters a and b represent the informational differ-
ences and opportunity tension parameters respectively, and k1 and k2 are con-
stants (needed to simplify equation 2). The particular values of the parameters,
7. Note that a 4th degree equation is the lowest degree equation for which two distinct points
of stability can be identified when certain values of the parameters a and b are reached.
This equation known as the Landau-Ginzburg equation (Guastello, 2002) has applicability to
many state-change and phase transition models in the natural sciences. Further, it has been
shown mathematically that many such cases can be modeled in this way simply by choosing
the coordinate system and parameters wisely.
A2
A2
A1
A1 A1 A2 A1 A2
Figure 2 The shape of the opportunity potential function (OPF) and thus the
possibility for qualitative change varies as informational differences (parameter
a) vary. For simplicity, the level of opportunity tension (parameter b) is assumed
to be constant and positive.
T
he GHS model says that the constraints on social systems that lead to bifur-
cated forms of organizing are not usually physical barriers (like sheer rock
cliffs). Rather the relevant constraints often relate to two broad categories
of barriers to growth: limits to resource availability, what is called opportunity
tension and parameterized by b; and limits to the synthesis of informational dif-
ferences by autonomous participants in the complex adaptive system, and pa-
rameterized by a.
The spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa is an example that can be used to illustrate
the process where a wave of information sharing (overcoming constraints in the
process) can lead to significant social change and innovation. Panel 1 in Figure
3 highlights the emerging realization that there is a raging epidemic (which in
the dynamical systems model described earlier, is equivalent to an infection rate
being in excess of a threshold value that engenders an epidemic outcome). At
first this information sharing is limited. Those who are threatened do not have
access to the information they need to take advantage of resources to prevent
I
n this paper we have defined a representational framework for organizing
forms as a topological space that includes two complementary topologies.
The first defines sets and subsets of organizing forms that cross scale, rang-
ing from one-on-one meetings to large organizations and even institutions. The
second defines sets and subsets of organizing forms at a given level of coarse-
graining, but allowing the relevant environmental conditions to vary as reflect-
ed by system parameters such as opportunity potential, b, and informational
differences, a8.
If one represents organizing forms to meet the requisite mathematical assump-
tions that were described herein (see Arnold, 1989 for more details), then any
mathematical result that is proven for open sets is true given both topologies.
This means that the GHS model and other related extensions can be applied
generally within this topological space. Further, it implies that the GHS model
can be applied at any coarse-grained level of scale, all the way from individual
interactions, to work groups, to institutions and governmental interactions so
long as the requisite assumptions are met. This is the challenge of course, and
some of these issues are taken up in the next section.
U
p to this points the implicit assumption has been that HID can be mod-
eled in much the same way as other systems such as physical or biologi-
cal ones. Many authors have argued that there is a qualitative difference
in what complexity means in human terms versus physical systems. While we
also recognize that there is a difference, we suggest that the difference is more
one of degree than of category. This next section discusses several of these dif-
ferences and how theory must develop to accommodate them.
8. Note that we are using the single internal variable X and two parameter (a,b) case for illus-
tration. However, the result is true in general and other more involved cases also apply with
no fundamental modifications to the argument being necessary (Arnold, 1989).
Future Directions
T
his paper provides a general framework for models of human organizing
and how organizing forms adapt to changing circumstances to innovate
and create new social forms. Although conceptual at present, the model
presented is described in mathematical terms and is consistent with accepted
mathematical results.
Further work is needed to define the parameters that support the model empiri-
cally. In fact one of the most important next steps is to develop an application of
this model to a real life business or social service situation. In doing so, the pa-
rameters defining opportunity tension, b, and informational differences, a, must
be identified, defined and operationalized. If specific numerical values cannot
be directly assessed for “a” and “b” within a given organization it may be possible
to estimate relative values for a and b when compared to other organizations,
and this ordering approach might be used as a surrogate in empirical settings.
For example an organization that has significantly greater access and/or control
over needed resources on an attribute type scale would have a higher rank value
than some other organization that are less well positioned. Research taking this
approach would find support in the considerable literature on dynamic organi-
zational capabilities and the resource based view of the firm (see for example
Helfat, et al., 2007)
This approach is also similar to the Decision Analysis Model that utilizes the
Hurwicz criterion and the coefficient of optimism—a relative value defined be-
tween 0 and 1—to select appropriate decision alternatives. In this case, a to-
tally optimistic individual is assessed the value of 1 while a totally pessimistic
individual is assessed a value of 0. The indifferent individual is assigned a value
References
Arnold, V.I. (1989). Catastrophe Theory, ISBN 9783540548119.
Arthur, W.B. (2009). The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves, ISBN
9781416544050.
Crutchfield J.P. and Feldman, D.P. (1997). “Statistical complexity of simple one-dimen-
sional spin systems,” Physics Review E, ISSN 1539-3755, 55 (2): 1239-1242.
Crutchfield J.P. and Feldman, D.P. (2003). “Regularities unseen, randomness observed:
The entropy convergence hierarchy,” Chaos, ISSN 1054-1500, 15: 25-54.
Epstein, J. M. (1997). Nonlinear Dynamics, Mathematical Biology, and Social Science, ISBN
9780201419887.
Feldman D.P. and Crutchfield, J.P. (1998). “Statistical measures of complexity: Why?”
Physics Letter A, ISSN 0375-9601, 238 (415): 244-252.
Feldman, D.P., McTague, C.S. and Crutchfield, J.P. (2008). “The organization of intrinsic
computation; Complexity-entropy diagrams and the diversity of natural information
processing,” Chaos, ISSN 1054-1500, 18: 043106-1.
Gell-Mann, M. (2002). “What is complexity?” in A.Q. Curzio and M. Fortis (eds.), Com-
plexity and Industrial Clusters: Dynamics and Models in Theory and Practice, ISBN
9783790814712, pp. 13-24.
Goldstein, J., Hazy, J.K. and Lichtenstein, B. (2010). Complexity and the Nexus of
Leadership: Leveraging Nonlinear Science to Create Ecologies of Innovation, ISBN
9780230622289.
Goldstein, J.A., Hazy, J.K. and Silberstang, J. (2010). “A complexity model of social inno-
vation in social enterprise,” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, ISSN 1942-0676, 1(1):
101-125.
Hazy, J.K. (2008b). “Leadership or luck? The system dynamics of Intel’s shift to micro-
processors in the 1970s and 1980s,” in M. Uhl-Bien and R. Marion (eds.), Complexity &
Leadership Part 1: Conceptual Foundations, ISBN 9781593117955, pp. 347-378.
Hazy, J.K. (2011). “Parsing the ‘influential increment’ in the language of complexity:
Uncovering the systemic mechanisms of leadership influence,” International Journal
of Complexity in Leadership and Management, ISSN 1759-0256, 1(2): 164-191.
Hazy, J.K. (in press). “The unifying function of leadership: Shaping identity, ethics, and
the rules of interactions,” International Journal of Society Systems Science, ISSN 1756-
2511.
Hazy, J.K., Ashley, A., Moskalev, S. and Torras, M. (2011). “Technology leverage and sus-
tainable society systems: A call for technology forecasting that anticipates innova-
tion,” International Journal of Society Systems Science, ISSN 1756-2511, 3(1/2): 5-20.
Hazy, J.K., Goldstein, J.A. and Lichtenstein, B.B. (2007). Complex Systems Leadership
Theory: New Perspectives form Complexity Science on Social and Organizational Effec-
tiveness, ISBN 9780979168864.
Hazy, J.K., Moskalev, S and Torras, M. (2010). “Mechanisms of social value creation:
Extending financial modeling to social entrepreneurship and social innovation,”
International Journal of Society Systems Science, ISSN 1756-2511, 2(2): 134-157.
Helfat, C.E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M.A., Singh, H., Teece, D. and Winter, S.G.
(2006). Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations, ISBN
9781405135757.
Hirsch, M.W., Smale, S. and Devaney, R.L. (2004). Differential Equations, Dynamical Sys-
tems and an Introduction to Chaos, ISBN 9780123497031.
Holland, J.H. (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, ISBN 9780262581110.
Prokopenko, M., Boschetti, F. and Ryan, A.J. (2009). “An information-theoretic primer on
complexity, self-organization and emergence,” Complexity, ISSN 1099-0526, 15(1):
11-28.
Surie, G. and Hazy, J.K. (2006). “Generative leadership: Nurturing innovation in complex
systems,” Emergence: Complexity & Organization, ISSN 1521-3250, 8(4): 13-26.
Torras, M. (2009). “Social entrepreneurship, social value, and the environmental Big
Push: Some remarks,” in J.A. Goldstein, J.K. Hazy and J. Silberstang (eds.), Complexity
Science and Social Entrepreneurship: Adding Social Value through Systems Thinking,
ISBN 9780984216406, pp. 215-230.
1 / 6 ^ h ^ + h@
N
RX ^t1, t1 + x h = lim Xk t1 Xk t1 x
N"3 N =
k 1
and,
T
1 # ^ h ^ + h
RX ^x, k h = lim Xk t Xk t x dt
T"3 T
0