tS Pei a I Pata EUS a eA EE Ta SS TU] A Volume in Leadership HorizonsComplexity Leadership Part |: Conceptual Foundations edited by Mary Uhl-Bien University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Russ Marion Clemson University Information Age Publishing, Inc. Charlotte, North Carolina + wwwinfoagepub.comLibrary of Congress Cataloging in-Pul ion Data Complexiy leadership / ited! by Mary UnI-Bien and Ross Marion, em. —(Lealersip horizons) Inces biblouraphicel references ISBN 978-1-$9311-995-5 ipbk,) — [SBN 97S-1-S9311-796-2 (hardcover) )- Leadership. 2. Management. 3, Comples organizations. 4, Organizational change. Ufo, Mary. 1. Marion, Russ HD57.7.C052 2008, (658.4092 —de22 2007081242 ISBN 13: 9781-59311-298 5 ipbk ISHN 13 9781-89511-7962 (harceoner) Cover At: ewan 202 85686, by Chris Urs oot rave, snd the Elsi Shoop. Copyright ©2008 IAP Iaformion Age Publishing, Ine Allrights reserved, No part of tis publication may be produc, stored ina reuieval system, or ransmited, i any fom or By any means ctctronic, mechanical, rhotosoaving, miswslming, rccning or othe, without writen permission fon he pubis Prine in the United States of AmericaCHAPTER 1 COMPLEXITY THEORY FOR ORGANIZATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP Russ Marion ABSTRACT ectives of enganizational behavior es challenge change and from the envine importation of en related notions of prevliciabifiy, planni ational behavior is characterized by non- action and interdependency: wnpredictabi or; and dynamic movement. An intportant male of leadership (what we call, enabling leadership) in complex systems is 10 enable the conditions in which complex dynamics cae ‘and coordination. Complexity theory argues that complex We hein this book by asking, “Why complexity theory?" What is different about complexity that warrants the interest chat ic has garnered among Comploty Leedersip, Past 1: Concypral Fowodations pp. 1-16 Copyright © 2008 by Information Age Publishing All righis oF repnodetion in any form reserved 12 RLMARION biologists, physicists, economists, and more reventy, social scientists. The short resting because complesity science seems to cont dice much of what we once took for granted about how systems of things (people, weather patterns, etc.) work. It seemingly contradicts, for exam: ple, the science of entropy and challenges Western rationality by arguing that order is free, So why should we, as leadership theorists, be interested in this science of emergent change? ‘The answer, we propose, is that the organizational environment of the tventy-first century possesses drama and unpredict ability, and complexity science is quite comfortable in that world. What is leadership in complex organizations and environments? While this is the subject of most of the chapters in this book, in this chapter I will briefly introduce the reader to some of the major principles of complexity theary and to how they might relate to leadership. WHY COMPLEXITY? The challenge in answering the first of the questions posed above ‘why complexity?) will be to, fist, succinctly and clearly define what separates complexity theory from other ways of understanding reality, and, second, to then delve into how complex dynamics operate. However, the signif cance of the complexity paradigm is neither immediately apparent nor casily communicated. ‘The problem is not that complexity is necessarily dense and impenetrable to those not trained in its intricacies; rather, the problem is that our frames of reference for understanding get in the way: We tend, for example to define our experiences im terms of variables and linear cause and effect, reductionism (or analyzing the specific on the assumption that it will reveal the whole), predictability, equilibrium, and linear evolution (Marion, [999). We tend to assume that leadership is cen tered in personalities and based on authority (whether legal or ascribed by those who follow) and that leaders make decisions, solve problems, coordinate, motivate, focus cllort, plan, manage conflict, inlluence, align effort wsith formal goals, and create change. Gomplexity theory is not grounded in such common assumptions, thus it may be diffieult for some ‘o reorient their thinking to its premises. Complexity does not deny these realities: rather, it extends them. Just as quantum dynamics provided new lenses by which to understand New: tonian physics, complexity provides different perceptions and. tools by which to understand and evaluate organizational bebaviors. Like quan tum physics, complexity has led to dramatic insights about entropy in physics (Prigogine, 1997) and evolution in biology (Kauffman, 1993); we propose that it holds similar promise for leadership and social dComplenity Theory for Organeations and Organizational Leadership 3, The Uniqueness of Complexity Theory Complexity theory is the study of the dynamie behaviors of complexly ting, interdependent, and adaptive agents under conditions of internal and external pressure. Complexity theory makes several unique observations about those dynamics, three of which we diseuss in this paper First, complexity researchers have found that a system of interacting agents does not require coordination or input from sources outside that system in onder to cteate ordered behavior and structure (Goodwin, 9M; Kauffman, 1993: Turing, 1952), ‘Traditional assumptions that outsice help is required to create order is evident in biological thought, which has historically presumed that the evolution of structure is explained by inputs of food, ait, and so forth, and by the influence of extermal agents (e.g. the competitive pressures of natural selection). A story that began in the nineteenth century illustrates: Biologists at that time found, inexpliea bly, that one could eut the embryo ofa sca urchin in hallf and still obtain a {ull adult (actually ovo adults)—thus the blueprint for adulthood does not reside exclusively in the seed (remember this was before DNA). So where does the information for orcier come from? Mid-twenticth century sys tems theorists “solved” the problem by asserting that the “sced” of life only provides basic information and that the developing embryo draws additional information from its interaction with the environment (von Bertalantty, 1956). Again, this also was before we understood DNA, but the point is that scientists assumed that order is shaped by external forces. Onganization theorists have adopted these premises of evolutionary selection fo explain the emergence and development of structure in orgs nizations (Hannan & Freeman, 1977). Leadership theorists, however, have not gravitated toward natural selection, largely because organiza tional ecology researchers question whether leadership is of much use (Licberson & O'Gonnor, (973; Salancik & Pfetler, 177; Weiner & Mahoney, 1981). Leadership theorists assume instead chat usctil out comes require top-down coordination and intelligent planning: indeed the root structure of the word, leadership, refers to one who is in front of showing others the way. ‘That is, top-down leadership, like natural selec tion, assumes the generative power of external forces that exerts work to shape organizational outcomes. Complexity theory does not dispute this per se, but does argues that the future of a system lies also in its patterns of internal interactions—its complex behavior. Complexity theory proposes that order is heavily influ- enced by auto- or self-gencrative forces, dynamics that are reminiscent of prescientific notions of spontaneous generation, Alam ‘Turing (1952), for monstrated how structural differentiation in living onganisms4B, MARION {the emergence of bone and skin from the same embryonic source) can emerge from the interaction of cellular proteins—with no external coordi nation by chemical stimuli, Marion (1909) similarly argued that the desk top computer emerged [rom interactions among various technological components. Structtration and elaboration, th requite external help. Kauflman’s (19403) notion of autocatalysis ( onder catalyzes itself) is based on this assertion. Second, complexity researchers (several of whom—e.g.llva Progogine and Murray Gell-Mann—are Nobel Prize winners) have discovered that order can be created by dissipating —{getting rid of energy: by being entropic (see Haken, 1983; Prigogine, 1997)! This Mes in the lace of tra ditional assumptions (and the second law of thermodynamics) that orcier emerges when energy is accumulated (Buckley, 1967). Complexity theo s angue that, shen systems become overly tense ar destabilized, they will sudclenly, anc often dramatically, release that energy, and will create new, typically unexpected, order in the process. That is, explosive release ‘ean be creative—a mini big bang event. Complexity theory deseribes this as emergent, nonlinear change, or phase transitions (MeKelsey, this vol Finally, complexity theory argues that the future is ultimately unknov able and that our sophisticated predictive equations may not be as useful aswe think they are. God does play dice with the universe. The reason has to do with the nature of dynamic interactions and interdependeney, par ‘icularly in social behavior: Relationships among sistemic agents—among workers, or beeen leader and subordinates—are always influenced by ‘complex interactions with other agents in the system. ‘These interactions in tum are influenced by a random substrate that cannot be crased or properly ignored by mathematicians, statisticians, and social scientists (Marion, 1998); Marion & UbLBien, 2001). This substrate i a function of such things as history, random environmental perturbations, ancl idiosyn fal decision making (e.g., garbage can decision making; Cohen etal, 1972). The nature of complex interactive influences in combination ‘with this random substrate can have a eremencious, unpredictable effect on the future of a system (e.g. Lorenz's butterfly effect; Lorenz, 1964) Thus, just as quantum science marked the end of certainty at che quantum. level (Horgan, 1996), complexity marks the end of certainty in macrolevel dynamics (Prigogine, 1907). Seience, therefore, must supplement its pre dictive equations with methodology that seeks to understand the dynam ics by which interactive behavior occurs (Marion & UkiHBien, 2007). Summarizing, complexity dynamics are capable of spontaneously gen: erating new structure without inputs from external agents: they ercate order by dissipating energy rather than accumulating its and they ate largely unpredictable outcomes because they are driven by n, do not necessar crateCCompienity Theory for Organzations and Organizational Leadership 5 dynamics and complex interactions. These characteristies challenge com: ‘mon scientific assumptions and elaborate the way wwe understand organi zation, Complesity theory’s counterintuitive conclusions enable us to see dif ferent ways of knowing and practicing, and it is this lens that the authors in this book use to explore new ways to know and practice leadership. How Complex Dynamics Operate We now look a bit closer at the nature of complex systems and then describe the mechanisms by which change occurs in these systems. Regarding its nature. Coveney (2003) clefines complexity theory as the “smdly of the behaviour of large collections of ... simple, interacting units, endowed with the potential to evolve with time” (p. 1058). Complexity is in reality far more complex than is captured in this definition Cillicrs, 1998), but this is useful as a starting point because it captures three key characteristics of complex systems: they involve interacting units, they are dynamic (complexity is the study of changing behaviors), and they are Interaction among sentient agents is not a neutral pro- cess akin to shaking rocks together in a barrel, Interacting agents change because of interinliuence relationships, interdependent behaviors, and the emergence of subsets of agents acting interdependently with one another (emnergent subgroups of all sizcs and levels of embeddedness are called, complex adaptive stems: Langston, 1986). Dynamic behaviors and structures that emerge from complex interac nics are unrecognizable as linear combinations of the initial actors in the process. Gllicrs (1998), for example, observed that complex {as opposed to complicated) systems cannot be separated into component parts because those components are dynamically changed by their inter- actions. Complexity theory is also not about describing the networks by ‘which people and other agents relate to one another (ie., social network theory; Barnes, 1954), although complexity docs involve networks. Rather, complexity theory examines the juticrns of dynamic mechanisms that ‘emerge from: the adaptive mteractions af many agen Intcractive behaviors ancl outcomes feed back on one another in con- voluted fashion, with effects becoming causes and with influence often wielded through extended chains of eflect. These networks exhibit multi- ple redundancies. with the same effect receiving input via multiple chains of causation (such that, were one chain interrupted, the others maintain the effect). ‘That is, complex systems are robust. Cillers (1998) calls this networked process ecvoreney tive dyn© RL MARION Dynamic. Second, complexity refers toa dynamic process in which things change and emerge over time. Complexity is not about static evenis, such as atemporal relationships among variables (relationships that ave true in the past, present, and furure), Complex systems do exhibit global stability and resilience, but that stability is like an outer bank sea. shore that is recognizable from year to year, yet different every time it is viewed—even dramatically so at times. Change, then, even unpredictable ‘change, is a key characteristie of complex behavior. Adaptation. Coveney’s description of complexity imposes the ability to adapt, or to make strategic changes that adjust individual or systemic responses {0 pressures. Adaptation occurs at two levels: individual and aggregate. Individual adaptation is “selfish,” as Richard Dawkins (1076) has so eloquently argued. That is, its nature is related to local stimuli and individual preferences. But, whereas biologists angues that adaptive ‘changes which improve an individual’ viability will likely improve its abil ity to pass that gene to future generation, complexity theorists argue that selfish actions interact with, and adapt to, the selfish actions of other indi viduals, ‘The resulting interactive adaptations and compromises simulta. neously serve the locally pertinent, adaptive needs of the individuals Involved and create adaptive capability for the aggregate as a whole. In summary, complexity theory is about the dynamics of interaction among multiple, neqworked agents, and how such interactive dynamies generate emergent events (¢.g., creativity, learning, adaptability). The dynamic behaviors in complex systems that accomplish these ends are called mechanisms, and we now turn to that topie, Inside the Black Box: Mechar A major key to understanding complexity lics in understanding, that complex dynamics are driven by certain universal, emengent mechanisms, Mechanisms are defined broadly as processes that generate given out comes (Hedstrim & Swedberg, 1998}; they are what is going on in com plexity’s “black box” sshen change occurs, the dynamics that enable and foster that change. A mechanism can refer to a specific dynamic mix of variables and eausal chains that explain some event. For example, medical scientists have explained the molecular mechanisms—the interactions of proteins, molecules, and invasive chemicals—that link cigarette smoking to cancer, Defined in this way, mechanisms are unique to the phenome: non observed, Complexity theory is, of course, useful for helping understand such utcome-specific mechanisms. Theorists’ more immediate interests, how- thanisms that are generalizable across phenomena (Uhl-BienCompienity Theory for Organeations and Organizational Leadership 7 & Marion, 2007), dynamic types that are likely observed in any: given’ complex behavior From this perspective, mechan available, emergent patterns of behavior that enable a dynamic mix of variables (agents) and causal chains. We label these, complex mecha. nisms. Note that the first, more specific definition of mechanisms is sub: sumed within the second, which provides a framework within which particularistie mechanisms can be understood. Complexity theory, then, involves identifying and describing complex mechanisms and patterns of relationships among mechanisms—in addition to more traditional exami nation of variables and rekitionships among variables One of the more basie mechanisms that emerges in complex interac tions is called correlation (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Poincaré, 109 Views, assumptions, pr es, ete. individual resonances fluctuate ran. domly over time}. Correlation fosters bonding and aggregation (a second mechanism), or the clustering of several agents based on the evolution of common or interdependent resonances. Aggregation is readily observed in clusters of ears on a highway. Importantly, aggregation occurs when agents change in part (but never wholly) to conform to 2 common inter resonance structure. Complex dynamies spawn autocatalytic mechanisms, or emergent struc tures and beliefs that enable certain other mechanisms or that speed their actions (Kaufiman, 1903). ‘Ihis phenomenon has been rather widely observed in chemistry and biology. For example, tin deteriorates in cold temperatures and the process, which is called tin pest, accelerates once it begins because the dynamic autocatalyzes further deterioration, In pro duction, the development of technology required for microcomputers was accelerated in the 1970s by the emergence of processor-based foys and cal ealators (Anderson, 1995; Marion, 1099) Social aetion is autos the emergence of coordinating structures, and deviant riot be as looting) is autocatalyzed by (speaking tantologically) rioting behavior Nonlinear emergence (a fourth mechanism) is a complexity-generated ‘mechanism in which dynamic states suddenly shift. The sudden demise of the Soviet Union is a rather dramatic example. Nonlinear emergence is based on two eausative mechanisms: self-organized criticality (Bak & Chen, 1991; Bak, ‘Tang, & Wiesenfeld, 189) and far-from-equilibrium dissipation (Prigogine, 1997) Sclf-Organized Griticality. Sell-organized criticality refers to sudden, mexpected shifts in structure or behavior in complex, interacting systems of many agents, Agents and clusters of aggregated agents in interacting systems constantly change as they adapt to environmental conditions and to one another. Metaphorieally, these changing, adapting systems move8 RLMARION around landseapess these landscapes have numerous pits! or choices, strewn across them, and the systems (or parts of systems) shift unespect cecly when they “fall” into one of these pits. These pits represent strate gieslattractors, defined in physics as a realm of behavior to which motion gravitates. The back and forth motion of a pendulum is an (noneomplex) attractor, and motion within its “basin of attraction” will gravitate toward it, Complex attractors describe stable but nonrepetitive behavior (Lorenz, 19935)—their motion is not regular like a pendulum’s, but they otherwise exhibit similar characteristies. No one has yet rigorously defined attractor pits for social systems so any example 1 provide will be metaphorical. For our purposes, however, ‘ve will define it as interresonant behaviors of multiple actors or ide: fad—multiple agents acting in concert around. a common preference— ‘would be a rather clear example, as would institutional behayiors (DiMag: gio & Powell, 1991) or clusters of interacting cars speeding down a high: ‘way. SelFonganized criticality occurs when an exploring, dynamic system randomly moves within the range of, and suddenly “falls” into, a given complex attractor: The onset of looting in riots, sudden shifts in stock markets, and organizational extinctions (such as the clemise of Winn-Dixie food stores in the Southeast United States) all exemplify attractors which drow systems that moved within their basins of attraction. Such emergent shifts are not “caused” in the traditional sense of the word; rather, they occur because of the dynamic, random movements of complex systems. Emergence expressed as self-organized criticality, then, is a function of adaptive exploration and. comples attractors. Emergence is naturally occurring change and stabilization and does not require external work or energy t0 occur. This order is free (Kanflman, 1998). Dissi Structures. Dissipation traditionally refers to the release of energy and resultant entropy. Entropy is associated with dete! of order while increasing cnergy is associated with the erearion of order: General systems theory, for example, postulates that social and biological orcler is based on negentropic absorption of energy fiom the environment (Buckley, 1967; von Berialantly, 1956). Prigogine (197), however. found mechanisms by which order can actually emerge, rather than deteriorate, from the dissipation of energy. He refers to the results as dissipative struc- ‘ures, Heated oil, for example. absorbs energy from a stove but will exhibit litcle change (new order) until its energy builds to an unstable level—what Prigogine called, “far-from-equilibrium”; at that point, the interacting oil molecules suddenly dissipate energy—they “break” the builtup tension. This nonlinear release allows them to move into an ordered, gently rol: ing, lower energy state (Haken, 1983); that is, they increase order by diss pating energy. Unlike criticality, external agents (eg, leaders, environmental pressures: any agent that controls energy) can influenceCCompienity Theory for Organeations and Organizational Leadership 9 dissipative structures. Pat differently, external agents can control the knobs on Haket Complex Dynamics and Emergence Emergence is @ sudden, unpredictable change event produced by the actions of mechanisms. Emergence occurs at all levels of intensity with ‘most changes being of lowr intensity and an occasional few, of high inten= sity (plotting intensity by frequency yields a power law eurves Bak, 1996; Schrocder, 1991). That is, a complex system is a dynamic soup of interac tive agents and mechanisms that continually spawn multi- but mostly lowe intensity, emergent changes (with occasional high intensity changes). Emergent outcomes are differentiated from steady growth outeomes t build steadily, step by step, from known beginnings and with predictable trajectories the “stull * of traditional science), Importantly. emergence is generated by interaction and energie pres- sure rather than by individuals acting alone; it is produced by the dynamic actions of mechanisms rather than by variables that exert con- stant, predictable effect. here are numerous interactive dynamics (mech- anisms) going on in Haken's oil prior to phase transition that influence the system's trajectory and the nature of phase transition. Similarly, there are important interactive dynamics (mechanisms) happening on critical ity’s surfaces that influence trajectories aevoss surfaces and influence the likelihood of jumping out of a given attractor pit. The dynamic interac tions that generate change (i.e., the mechanisms described earlier) are both the source of complexity’s unpredictability and are the proximal cause of the outcomes that make complex dynamics so valuable to organi zations. Complex Outcomes Creative change is an important emery dynamics. This can manifest as dor example) innov through solutions to problems, new insights. or revised ways of under- stancling issues. For example, new proclucts that represent the “collapsing together” of various, seemingly unrelated technologies in the same (or related) attractor are emergent outcomes of complex dynamics; the emer- gence, in 1975, of the microcomputer illustrates (Marion, 199). Unique ‘Adaptive strategies cam emerge from complex dynamics, as can Kearning surges, differentiated structuring; and sudden structural collapses (©. organizational extinetion) of compl c ideas, Ineak:10. R- MARION The goal of the complexity leader is 10 ereate such outcomes within an environment in shich it would be difficult «0 anticipate that you even need them, Such environments ate rapidly changing and highly intercon: rected. Complexity allosss systems to “adapt on the fy,” s0 to speak, to effectively adjust to exigencies as they arrive. LEADERSHIP IN COMPLEX SYSTEMS The introduction to this chapter asked three questions: What is uniquely different about complexity theory, why should leadership theorists be interested in this science, and what is Ieadership in complex environ: ments? We have answered the first questio but only brielly—the subsequent authors questions). The introduction proposed a condensed answer to the “why” question for leadership: Complesity theory is a comfortable fit for today’s complex organizational environment. Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey have acidresses this question in their article in this book (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, this volume). ‘the problems with which organizations eal are highly complex and cannot be solved by top-down planning alone (Mar jon & Ubl-Bien, 2007). These problems often appear quickly and unex peetedly, as {/11, Katrina, the collapse of Enron, the precipitous emergence of new technology demonstrate. The modern organizational environment is hyperturbulent and rapidly changing (Hitt, 1998). It is global and highly interconnected. These (and other) isstues pose signif ‘ant challenges for leadership, particularly as it is traditional conceptual ized appropriate for a more stable, commodity-based economy; Uhl-Bien et al, this volume). A leadership approach based on complexity theory, one that is tailored for complex organizations and complex environments, is better suited for dealing with this knowledge-based environment, We roler to this approach as complexity leadership, id turn no's to the next two this book will flesh out chese Complexity Leadership Among other things, complexity leaclership provides a framework in which certain leader behaviors work to foster complex mechanisms and generate conditions in which agents can respond quickly and effectively to unanticipated conditions (both destructive and beneficial). Mecha nisms, as defined carfier, are the dynamic processes that emerge within complex systems. Mechanisms enable emergent creativity, learning, and adaptability (Uh/-Bien etal. this volume’.Complenity Theory for Organizations and Organizational Leadership 11 In complexity leadership, enabling leaders work to catalyze mechanisms by creating conditions Wve (see Uhl Bien et al., this volume). This isa different sort of role for leadership than Js typically presented in the literature: enabling leaders allow things to ‘occur over which they have relatively little direct contol. They create the structures, rules, interactions, interdependencies, tension, and culture in ‘which complex mechanisms can thrive and unanticipated outcomes can ‘occur—and, they create mechanisins that weed out poorly adaptive out Second, in complexity leaclership enabling leaders foster conditions that allow the system to respond effectively and rapidly to catastrophic or opportunistic changes. Effective leadership during catastrophic events is, of course, critical. But what constitutes elleetive leadership under such conditions? Events during the week following Katrina are, perbaps, instructive. Structured, preplanned, and top down leadership such as that provided! by Federal Emergency Management Agency appeared impotent during that crucial week. Conditions were simply too overwhelming, com: plex, and fast moving for the ageney. The most effective responses to the Katrina crisis were more bottom-up in. un boatmen, for exam. ple, coordinated their efforts via two-way radios and helped evacuate ‘many stranded citizens. No bureauerat in Washington, DC worked the red tape or planned their efforts: rather the boatmen responded adaptively and spontaneously to the needs of the moment (see Stephenson & Bon: beau, 2007 for further discussion and other examples), Complexity leadership theory proposes that effective leadership cre ates conditions in which localized instances of adaptive behavior (Uhl Bien et al,, this volume) cart emerge anc! adapt to situations such as Kat rina. It enables agents to take initiatives, it enables communication‘inter action, and it builds interdependencies. That is, a complexity leadership framework allows us to see ways to enable the emengence of what Bon: abeau and Meyer (200) eall, swarm behavior: Such behavior emerges in crisis conditions when enabling leadership fosters bottom-up action and adaptive (emergent) leadership. Agents can similarly respond to unanti pated, fast-paced opportunities in business, nongovernmental organiza: tions, schools, and elsewhere when leaders work (0 foster complex structures in their organizations, 1 which those mechanistas DISCUSSION Karlier in this chapter, I suggested (somewhat implicitly) that traditional approaches to leadership may not be suificient for dealing with complex environments. Traditional strategies for leadership have been quite ste12. R-MARION cessful in the commodtity-oriented organizations that characte twentieth century. Honever; these stratexies exhibit basic « that limit their applicability im situations requiring dynamic creativity, adaptability, and learning (UblBien etal. this volume) The issues that shape—and imit—tracitional leadership thought were articulated many decades ago by Chester Barnard (1938). He proposed that the role of leadership is to align unstructured organizational forces {individual preferences, goals, and strategies, work habits, social behav tors, activities, ete) with formal organizational goals. The legacy of this premise is readily observed in transformational leadership, LMX theory, and other eurrent approaches to leadership study and practice (Marion, 2006), Traditional theories have implemented Bamard!’s notions with top down control; planning, structuring and evaluation; centralized vision and focus; and rationalized structures. While such strategies have been powerful in commodity oriented environments, they are a weak fit for tasks requiring adaprability, creativity, and rapid response—the end tions that we proposed in this paper characterize twenty-first century organizational environments. For example, top-down approaches to lead ership do not adequately address the demands of creative enterprises {such as R&D oF scholarly research), highly complex tasks (such as sophis ‘icated softvare production), or conditions that require rapid change and adaptability (e.g. modern battlefield conditions that deal with guerti tactics; Schreiber & Carley, this volume), Scholars who stuey ereativity in organizations have recognized the importance of creative autonomy ina broader context of top-down planning and structuring (©. Mumford, Bedell-Avers, & Hunter, in press); other leadership theorists have struggled with ehallenges of fast-paced environments (creativity, flexibility, rapid response; €-¢., Fletcher, 2004; Pearce & Conger, 2008) However; complexity theory cals with these environments directly, thor oughly, and systematically Complesity theory makes the rather unigue assertion that Barnard’s uncontrolled activites ean be uselul for the organization and that leader ship under conditions of knoswledge production should develop strategies for taking advantage of this resource. This chapter has begun to describe the nature of these uncontolled activities (i... complex dynamics) and to describe how leaders and leadership might enable and utilize these forces Complex dynamics produce surprise and flexibility surprise in the form of creative solutions to problems, and flexibility im the form of rapid adaptation to complex environmental conditions. Complexity theory underscores the significant importance of internal dynamics in the pro: duetion of new stractures and ideas. Complesity uniquely describesComplenity Theory for Organizations and Organizational Leadership 13 change processes as nonlinear emergent events and it identifies an unpre dictable substrate within complex systems that complicates planaing and top-down leadership. It proposes that we should appreciate the impor: tance of interactive dynamics in organizational processes and it chal lenges the dyadic relationsbip as the primary unit of analysis in onganizational studies, Complexity theory may be unsettling because it challenges "givens” in our Western mindset—the Newtonian-inspired assumptions of predict able outcomes, logical relationships, and linear cause and effect. But the extreme complexity of organizational activities in the twenty-first century are likewise “unsettling,” unpredictable, and nonlinear. Complexity th ory addresses these thorny problems facing twenty tions, problems brought on by globalization, rapid change, the “unpredictable behaviors of technological advances, the memendous com- plexity of many of the tasks we undertake, and the shifting organizational focus on knowledge rather than commodities (Boisot, 1998; Hitt, 1998; Meyer, Gaba, & Colwell, 2003) So complexity turns things upside down and looks at events differently. Complexity leadership redefines Barnard’s maxim, stating that leader- ship mines the resources of the “irrational” forces that Barnard sought to suppress. It recognizes the importance of many critical minds struggling autonomously but interdependently over problems that t system faces, Complesity theory seeks to understand organization with paradigmati- cally different lenses than have been used in the past and to derive lessons al with unpredictability and rapidly from those lenses about how to ¢ changing oryanizatio and envito NOTE 1. Actually, a surface with pits may be misleading co some because ofits asso ciation with the potential energy surface in physics. In potential energy laces, pits are low energy stater—the deeper the pit, the lower the nergy. In complexity, these pits represent fitness strategies: the deeper the pit, the moze usefil the ssategy (Kauflin, 1999), REFERENCES Anderson, (1995). Microcomputer manufacturers. [9 G.R. Carvoll & M.T. Han- nan (Lds.), Orgentzeuons ox indusiry (pp. 87-98), New York: Oxrond University Press. Bah, P (1996), Hew netne works, New York: Copernicus Bak, 2 & Chen, K. (1991). Selbonganized criticality. Sciewific American, 46:53.14 RMARION Bak, P, Tang, CS Wiesenfeld, K. (198®). Self organized exitcalty: An explana: tion of Hf noise. Physical Review Later, 38, 381384 Barnard, C. 1, (199). The junctions of he execuaive. Cambridge, MA: Havate Uni versity Press Barnes, J- A. (L954). Class and committees in a Norwegian island parish. Haier Relations, 7(1), 30-58. Boisot, M. (1998). Knuledge asi: Secure competivw advantage in the bformation ecouny. Oxford, England: Oxtord University Press Bonabesu, E., 8 Meves, C. 2001). Swarm intelligence: A whole new way to think shout business. Hearse Business Res, 79(5), 107-114, Buckley, W. (1967). Soviiigy ara modern stems theory. Exylewood Cliff, N= Pren tice Hall Gillers, (1908). Compleity and poutnodzpnism: Understanding comple sens. Lon: don: Resiledge Cohen, M.D. Match, J Gu. & Olsen, J. P (1972). A garbage can model oF organi ‘ational choice. minatotive Science Quarterly, 17, 25, Coveney, P (2003). Soiforganization and complesty: A new age for theory, computation ‘und experiment. Paper presented at the Nebel symposium on self-organization, Karolinska Institutet, Stockhol Dawkins, R. (1976). The slfuh gene, New York: Oxford University Press DiMaggio, 2 J, & Howell, W. W. (1991) "The iron cage revisited: Institutional io. ‘niorphist nk collective rationality ia organizational fields. In W.W. Powell & PJ. DiMaggio (Fas). The new iustindinalism iv oxpenizational anabyis (pp. 63- 83). Chicago: University of Chicago Press Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and wansformational change. The Lewbrskip Quavterly, 15), B4T-661 Goodkin, B. (1994), How the leopard changed its spots: The exebuton of complexity. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Haken, H. (1083). Sjuergeis, an atoaction (Vol. 3). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, Hannan, MT, & Freemn, J. 0977). The population ecology of orgamizitions. Acrican Journal of Sociologs, 82, 929-964 Hedsirdm, B, & Swedberg, RU (1998), Social meckanisms: ln aualticed approach to svc teary. Cambridge, England: Cambricge University Pres. Hit, M.A. (1098), Presidential address: "Twenty-first century onganizations: Bost ness firms, business schools. and the academy. The Aendemy of Management Review, 23, 218-221, Horgan, J. (1995). The end of sence: Facing the limits of hoedge in the tuilght of the ‘eine eva, New York: Broadway Books, Kaullan, S.A. (1999). Te origins of onder, New York: Oxford University Press Langston, C. G. (1086). Studying actiieial life with cellular automata. Passio, D, 120-148) Lieberson, 8. & O'Gonnor, J. F (1972). Leadership and. organizational pertor- rmunce: A study of large conposations. Aneiean Secilapical Review, 37, 117- 130. Lorenz, E. (1964). The problem of deducing the climate from the governing equa tions. Tiles, 16, 1-11 Lorena, E. (1993). The esence of chaos. 5 ste: Universiey of Washington PressComplenity Theory for Organizations and Organizational Leadership 15 Marion, R. (1999). The edge of organtzetion: Chaos and complexity theories of formal svoval argenizntons, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Marion. R. (2006). Complexity is organizations: A paradigin shift. In A. Sengupta (£4), Chaos, nonkineary, complestr: The dyanscal paradigns aj nature (Vol. 208, pp. 248-270), Berlin: Springer-Verlag, Marion, R., & UbL-Bien, M, 2001), Leadership in complex oxganivations. The Leadership Oventerty, 12, 389-418 Marion, R., & Ubl-lBien, M. (2007), Paradigmatic influence and leadership: The perspectives of complexity theory and bureaucracy theory. In J. K. Hazy, J Goldstein & B. Lichtenstein (Eds), Complex tens leadership toory (pp. V1 158), Mansfield, MA: ISCE, Mevers A. D., Gaba, V, & Colwell, K. A. 2005). Oxganizing far fiom equilibrium: Nonlinear change in organizational fields. Orgonization Seienen, 16(3), 4 475, Munford, M., BedellAvers, K. ., & Hunter 8. (in press} Pkanning lor innova: tion: A tlt-level perspective, In M.D. Muratord, Sl. Hunter & KE. Bedell (Fals.), Researeh iv mnti-eve ives, Oxford, England: Ferien Pearce, C. La & Conger; J. A. (2008), Shaved leadership: Refraning the kows and whys of leaderhap, Uhowsand Oaks: Sige Poincaré, H. (Fd). (1902). New autos af celestial merhamies (Nol. 13). New York SpringerNerkag. Prigogine, I. (1997). The ond of ceraiuy. New York: The Five Press. Salandik, G. R., & Pletles, J. (1977). Constraints on administrator discretion: The Timited infhience af muyats om city bulgets. Urban Affairs Quarter, 12, 475 4198, Schroeder, M. (INI). Faddls, chaos, power laws. New Yorks WH. Freeman, Stephenson, W.D,, & Bonabea, £ (2007), Expecting the unexpected: The need fora nenworked terrorism and disaster response stateyy [Flecironic Version) Homeland Security Affairs, 3 froma htip/Avwwhsaj.org/article=3.1 3 Turing, A. M, (1052). The chemical basis of morphogenesis, Philor Trane Royal Seer of Condom B, 233637), LUhLBien, SE, & Marion, R. 2007), The mechanisms ofemensence in complesity ewer ship theory: A meso-model of adaptive dyuamics in organtations. Mamusexipt sub- ‘mitted for publication. von Bertalanfly L. (1956). General stents theory. In L. von Bertalanlly 8A. Rap- ‘oport (Eds), General gens: Yearbook of the sce for dhe advancement of general sxsems theory (Vol, 1, pp. 1-1). New York: George Brazile: Weiner, N., & Mahoney, L.A. (1981). A model of corporate performance as func- tion of environmental, organizational, and leadership influences. Academy of Management Jounal, 24, 458-470.Copyrighted materialCHAPTER 2 CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF COMPLEXITY SCIENCE Development and Main Constructs Jeffrey Goldstein ABSTRACT This chapter offers a descriptive survey of 9 major Hele’ making-up cone lemporary complesity theary as well as dhe main eonsimess being devel oped in these fields. "The emphasis is on uncovering enough about the nature and development of these ideas so as to inform readers co their potential utility im their research, Connections among these fields are explored and the reader is provided literature for further exploration, INTRODUCTION a field of In is certainly no accident that the study of complex system Known generally under the term “complexity theory: risen pur current historical period. The theoretical emphases of the Comploty Leedersip, Past 1: Concypmnal Fowoations pp. 17-18, Copyright © 2008 by Information Age Publishing All righis oF repnodetion in any form reserved 718 J, GOLDSTEIN former no doubt reflect the dominant features of the latter, namely, inter connectedness, interdependencies, and unprecedented rates of ehange. It was for these reasons that no less a scientific luminary than Stephen W. Hawking declared the twenty-first to be the century of complexity Complexity theory obviously did not emerge en masse but instead rep. resents a confluence of many ideas across from many fields in the sciences and mathematics that have been developing in many exciting new ways. In fact, in an important respect, chere is no one unified discipline to which the term “complexity theory” actually refers. Because of the many diverse types of complex systems which have been studied plus the wide range of mathematical and scientific methods and constructs which have been spavened from these studies, it’s been hard put to arrive at a general consensus on the definitions of “complex” and “complexity.” Neverthe: Jess, nine major interrelated research traditions and their main notions have been selected accordin mong complexity theo: Fists at least regarding a set of shared ideas, these core traditions and notions to be described in the second part of this chapter. To be sure, because of the wide extent and richness of the multifarious complexity constructs and methods, justice can not be done to an exposi tion of all or even most them here. instead, this chapter focuses on just a small selection of core idleas used aeross the varied studlies of complex sys tems, Hopefully, then, what ean be accomplished here is an appreciation of how such constructs have been developed and appropriated from dif ferent but related conceptual traditions. Such an exposition also aims at piquing interest as to their potential wility in the organizational and lead. ceship fields of interest t the readers. to some agreemet Such caveats also imply that certain important complexity-based ideas will not be covered here. There is always a selection of what to cover whether this selection is explicit or implicit, Although other complexity thinkers would probably supplement what is covered here with additional eoncepts, this author holds that the sct of core ideas discussed below ‘would most likely find their way into most discussions of complexity the ony in general. If the reader is at least inspived to inquite further into these other complexity notions, so much the better, and. he/she ean find some of these additional complexity construets mentioned in Figure 2.1 ‘One of the criteria used for the sclection process here is the basis of a concept in science, mathematics, or both, ‘There are of course complexity related conceptions that have arisen outside of science and math, such as in philosophy, literature, the arts, and even theology, which may inde prove in the long run to be just as significant as the ones included here and pethaps even to have more staying power for the study of complex systems. This author, however, doesn’t have the means to evaluate the importance or endurance of such iddeas and therefore is content, for theConceptual Foundations of Complexity Science 19 purposes of this book, to concentrate on just those complexity-based ideas ‘which have already an established track record in diverse scientific and ‘mathematical communities of practice. This should not be taken as a value judgment concerning the worth of complexity ideas emerging out- side of the stated comm study are themselves, of course, ies. Scientific and mathematical regions of jcumscribed by all sorts of sociological and anthropological facts. So be it, but that is nor what chis ehapcer is about. A final note is in order for this introduction to the chapter: Iwill not be going over current or recent organizational leadership applications of the core complesity notions discussed in this chapter since the literature mak ing up such investigations will without doubt be cited throughout the rest of the book. This chapter instead aims at an understanding of the core complexity notions im order to set a stage for their use in the study of leadership and organizations, NINE MAIN RESEARCH TRADITIONS AND THEIR CORE CONSTRUCTS. Although the scientific and mathematical disciplines making up contem: porary complexity theory formed out of a confluence of variegated sources, many of which ean be traced back to che World War Hand ies afiermath, nine main interrelated strands ean be discerned. A brief expo: sition of each can shed light on the central themes and issues of complex: ity theo: These nine influences are highlighted with underlines in Figure 2.1. This figure also displays some of the minor influences which for brevity are mostly side the sciences of complex systems, Compiled from Figure 2.1 is this list of nine major complexity fields and the core constructs that will be described below: tepped in this short review of the origins of + Swlens thinking: boundaries and positive and negative feedback loops: + TMhecrtical biology: organizations as organic, evolving, whole sys + Nonlinear dynamical systems theory (NDS): atraciors, bifurcation, chaos: + Graph teory: comnectivity and newxorkss + Phase transitions, Taring’'s morphogenetic model, spnergtis, and far-from equilibrion thernodynasnes: emergence of novel order; and20 J, GOLDSTEIN CHAOS THEORY sl ai Selenees of 7 ‘complex Systems SEU A) Tapco sauuay HBNDMAMLCE Figuce 2.4, Mathematical and scientific roots ofthe sciences of complex systems + Complee adaptive systems theory: evolving, adapting systems of inter- acting agents, The nine major fields have been included in only six sections because of overlap and deep connections between some of them. It should also be pointed out that these nine fiekds include evo which are purely mathemat- ‘eal, NDS and graph theory, although the other fields both utilize these ‘neo or have generated their own mathematical innovations. Organizations as Constituted by Positive and Negative Feedback Loops—Systems Thinking The very idea of a system eing that sort of entity whieh is somehow coordinated across iis part and existing within a boundary separating, it from the environment ean be made out as Far back as ancient Western as well as Eastern philosophy. However, this rather vague conception really started co come of modern age riding on the tail of the great and revolw tionary scientific achievements of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, and Leibniz in the seventeenth century: The next two centuries found an even greater emphasis on expostulating on the idea of a system in general, reaching its apotheosis during the arising of Naturphilosophie with sue lurninaries as Kant, Blumenbach, Goethe, Schelling, and Hegel (Lenoir, 1982), How: ever exciting and intriguing and inspirational these early ideas of a sys tem may have been, they dil not achieve the status of workable scientificConceptual Foundations of Complexity Science 21 and mathematical constructs until the mid-twentieth « this was due to the arrival of powerful computers and ei networks during World War IL and used afterwards for more peaceful pur: suits. Computation allowed vast ensembles of information about systems to be analyzed and for patterns to be detected that was simply not possi ble before. The recognition and probing of these patterns was aided by concomitant developments in mathematics, some of which we will explore below. All too often one hears some complexity aficionado enthusiastically praise a complexity idea as if it were just now hatched out of some con: temporary scientist's or mathematician’s brain. Yet many of these same ideas tur out, upon more careful scrutiny, to be derived! from earlier sys tems thinking which had already worked through many of the constructs) problems and potential applications. This author finds it surprising how litele many contemporary researchers actually kriow about the develop: ment of the very systems ideas they use in their research anel theorizing, This ignorance cam result in going over ground that was already concep: ‘ually tilled, sometimes with much greater facility, many years ago. Th fone reason we are starting off this chapter with a discussion of carlier sys tems approaches. Not only do many contemporary complexity notions have their roots in earlier traditions in math and science, 2 comparison of some of what's being done now with what was worked out earlier can sometimes reveal a deficit in the current idea with respect to the one in the past As can be seen from the left portion of the “whale diagram” of Figure 2.1, systems thinking evolved out of eybernetics, information theory, and related fields which, although initiated under the impetus of WIL devel oped speedily thereafter. Also, even though many of these early systems thinkers came out of technical fields where a major objective was improv: ing the efficiency of a host of actual machines, the conceptual under: standing of systems that was developing at that time had them posited as ‘more than mere inert mechanisms passively acted upon by external cir cumstances, On the contrary; these pioneers conceived systems as inher: ently dynamic in the sense of alternating rhythms of change and stability This dynamic property of systems was made possible by their being con: stituted out of positive and negative feedback interactions among the components of the system, an essentially nonlinear perspective that we'll come back to Inter: Whereas positive feedback refers to the amplification of one component's cflects on another (or itself}, negative feedback refers to an opposite dampening of such effeets Although systems were conceived as the interweaving of such positive and negative feedback resulting in the possibility of both change and sta bility, what dominated early systems thinking was negative feedback, in fury. Much of jnmunicational22 J, GOLDSTEIN the sense that systems were understood as essentially equilibrium secking, that is, would seek to restore an earlier stable state when disturbed by external perturbations or internal fhuctuations. This conception most likely derived from the cybernetic origins of systems thinking and the ‘work done on guidance systems, which had 2s a major objective the devis ing of mechanisms for bringing systems back on track after disturbances, asin a guided missile. The interweaving of feedback loops was considered the central feature by sshich systems were conceived as wholes, allowing for an intactness of the system in relation to its outer environments. Indeed, it was partly because of understanding systems as being essentially made-up of inter locking feedback loops that the term “complexity” was applied to such systems, As early as 1948, in an article in American Scientist, the mathema- tician Warren Weaver (148) was referring to feedback looped systems ‘when he defined the “organized complexity” of systems, “a sizable num ber of factors which are interrelated into an organic whole” (p. 437). A major player in applying the cybernetics idea of positive and nega. tive feedback loops to organizations was J. W. Forrester (1961) and his group at MIT: This was done both for the theoretical purpose of opera tions research as well as providing insight to managers as to the underly ing factors in erganizational functioning. Forrester’s work was popularized in the 190s by Feter Senge (1990), who dealt with so-called system “archetypes” of common patterns in organizations determined in large measure by positive and negative feedback. A related employment of carly cybernetically inspired systems concepts to organizations and management was provided by the brilliant British seientist and consultant Scafford Beer (1973). of World War TI, another idea, that of “selEorganiza- was starting to find its way into the burgeoning field of eybemneties where it primarily meant a kind of self-regulatory effect of feedback loops. ‘The actual origin of the idea, even the term itself, although in a nascent form, could be found in the work of Descartes and then Kant (Shalizi, n.d), In terms of eybemeties. the eminent British neurologist and systems theorist W. Ross Ashby (1962) used the idea of self-organiza tion to indicate goal-oriented systems capable of pursuing their objectives ‘without the nced for external imposition or guidance. In contrast to Kant, Ashby held that a cybernetic machine, that is, a system according to the new understanding of systems then developing. could actually be sel: organizing by undergoing spontaneous changes in its imternal order or organization, Hossever, Ashby tempered his views of self-organization by demonstrating that. strictly speaking, self-organization should not be thought of as an innate systemic propensity but was more accurately con ceived as a mechanical-lke, randomization process (Dupuy, 2000) Around the oConceptual Foundations of Complaxity Science 23 nice to earlier systems models on the part of some recent complexity researchers, the condensed matter phys and complexity researcher Kurt Richardson (2005, 2008) has identified a set of principles which are commonly presumed in complexity theory but whose origin can be traced to earlier systems approaches, a few of which incude: + Complementary law: Any txo or more perspectives or models may reveal truths about the system that are neither entirely independent hor entirely compatible Although this principle appears 10 be anachronistically postmodern in its sensibility, Richardson is aetu- ally hinting at the idea of multirealizability, that is, the way that sys tem goals and eventual properties may be reached by different pathways and configurations of internal elements. * Darkness principle: No system can be known completely and there: fore there is an implication of unpredictability. This topic will be rerurned to in later sections but for now it needs to be stressed that unpredictability does not necessarily imply a lack of determinative causes oF kis, but rather how the very complexity of such systems hinder attempts to precisely deduce fucure states Law of requisite variety: Formulated most strongly by Ashby, the idea here was that the contol of systems could only be elfeccuated “if the variety of the controller is at least as great as the variety of the situation to be controlled” (Ashby quoted in Richardson, 2006, Part 2, p. 499). Te be sure, more general principles of early systems thinking could be adumbrated bur neither space nor purpose would allews such an under taking hore. Instead, we mn by pointing out sn essential fea ture lacking in systems thinking per se, namely, the idea of emergence or the coming into being of radically novel structures and properties in sys tems, The ideology of earlier systems thinking does not seem to have been ready for this idea, although there were even earlier expositions of the idea in philosophy and even theology (Goldstein, 1999). Because of this deficiency, ic is harel to find in systems thinking allowance For the kind of innovation that would become essential to liter complexity theory. For the most part, systems thinking has retained an equilibrium-seeking model of organizations and in such a model ultimately there can be no place for emergence, an issue that has been superceded in complexity theory by a switeh, as we'll see below, to fer from-equilibriven systems vac this seimage not availableimage not available25 J, GOLDSTEIN onginic systems, characterized by a eapacity for the whole to restore itself alter being disturbed, another example of the idea of an equilibrium secking. However, for Bertalanlly, the steady state required a system open enough to its environment in order t be replenished from exchanges ‘wich that environment Paul Weiss, another embryologist who emigrated to the United States from Germany (and coincidentally had Whitehead himself on his disserta. tion committee at Harvard), did not believe there was a cogent story of how wholes could pass continuously from the mechanism of parts to the “integrated overall systemic order” of the whole, comparing it the enigma of how a railroad on tracks could keep making progress toward destination beyond a wasteland if the tracks suddenly came co an end in, the wasteland (Dupuy, 2000). Instead, he speculated that the system as an integrated whole gave “guiding cues” in the form of a “dynamic field structure of the total complex” (quoted in Dupuy, 2000, p. 131). Weiss referred to systemic wholes as “selE-eontained,” “sell-perpenuating,” and sustaining”—the latter term almost certainly derived from White: head's much earlier descriptions of organie wholes. Pethaps, the apotheosis of this holistic tendlency in theoretical biology. fone which went on to make its mark in the development of complexity theory, was the theory of autapoiesis put forward by the Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela (1980), Maturana, who had earlier tie-ins to cybernetics through hi seminal research on certain, ani vous systems, joined with Varela to di que charaeter of a living form: “autopoeisis” coming from “poiesis,” a Greek term mean: ing “production,” and “auto.” for “self,” so that “autopoiesis” means “self production.” The correspondence with the phrase “sel-organization” can be seen in the usual form of the latter term in many non-English lan: guages as “auto-organization.” Their concept of self-referential circular contained identity, a boundary which Varela and Goguen (197) later termed close, a counter to the earlier viewpoint of Bertalanfly and others, that living onganisins were open systems in con: stant information and energy exchanges with their environment (for similar notion see Rosen, 1996). Maturana and Varela (1987) offered an analogy to ilhustrate what closure entailed: a pilot flying blind in condi tions of very poor visibility relying only on the instrumentation in the cockpic where: any em al inputs are mere blips on the radar screen, This seems, however, to place autopoesis squarely in the equilib: rium-secking camp, since, as being essentially removed from its environ. ment, there doesn't appear to be any possible way for real change to occur—that is, emergence of genuinely innovative adaptationsimage not availableimage not availableimage not available30 J, GOLDSTEIN, and so forth have found a plethora of applications in amany disciplines (see, eg, Dineu & Holmes, 1996, p. 199; Weiss, 1987). OF particu :mferest in this regard for the study of leadership is the so-called “quali tive" dvnamies of NDS phase porttaits, referring to investigations into the geometrical, graph theoretical, set theoretical, and topological properties of phase portraits, These qualitative dynamics give insight into the gen. eral behavior allowed in such systems and how this behavior may be changed. It must be admitted that the use of NDS constructs in organizational theory has been mostly metaphoric. But this need not count against their utility in prodding thinking in: new directions. A case in point is to under stand an attractor in a social system as a way of talking about a "meta level” perspective. In this metaphoric sense, an attractor is a figurative manner of speaking about patterns of behavior occurring during particu Jar times or places in an organization. Leacers then can operate on the “level” of the organizational attractors, for unless the attractor is changed, behavior under its sivay cannot really shift. This may include investigating what is driving the stability of an attractor, how ean this be changed h what interventions, and so forth. No doubt, as we learn more about complexity applied to leadership, much of this initial, intuitive ‘work will be moze amenable to quantification and we will see a shift of direction of influence from social system theory and practice to the so: called hard sciences, Connectivity and Networks—Graph Theory We've seen how the conceptual framework of NDS underlies the math: ematical representations of both: how a complex system's dynamics may be circumscribed by particular attractor regimes as well as the manner in which such systems ean change, that is, biations. Another mathe cal field, graph theory, focuses on the mathematics of the networks consti tuting complex systems, both the internal connectivities among. the system's multifarious components ancl the connectivities between these internal networks and external networks in the system’s environment Graph theory ean also provide insight into change since innovations in system functioning may arise through the establishment of new linkages of connectivity. Perhaps the best example of such a netvorked system is the internet which consists of connections built on connections built on connections built on connections and on and on. A Web site links users to itself and other users: email service providers link people all over the globe in an almost instantancous fashion; and varied configurations like chat rooms,image not availableimage not availableimage not available34 J, GOLDSTEIN, Figure 2.7, Emergence of giant chister emergent order) ings, a global-level connectivity gets established. This shift from local to alobal is an indication of the emergence of novel order in the system. We can liken this adding of edges in a graph to the role of leadership in establishing connectivities among the parts and agents of the organiza tion and beween the internal system and ity multifarious envin ‘This isto ensure enough eonnections to insures an optimal flow of infor: mation across the whole system ments Organizations as Ex Emergence ing the Emergence of New Order— ‘One of the most important features of complex systems that have been, researched in recent years is that of emergence, or the arising of new structures with new properties out of the interactions taking place inside the system and benseen the system and its environment (Goldstein, 1999; Crutchfield, 1993). In respect to organizations and leadership. this research into emergence is proving to have great importance, since it is shedding light on how social innovations ean come about. AS mentioned earlier in this chapter, emergence was not something discussed in early systems theorizing, mainly because the early models of systems were eq) librium seeking and thus did not allow for radically novel innovations thatimage not availableimage not availableimage not available38. J, GOLDSTEIN, ‘Symmetry Breaking Nonlinearity and —- Instability Chemical control parameters Figure 2.9. Onset of morphogenetic forms in Turing’s devised a mathematical formulation to represent how a mixture of chemi cals, diffusing and reacting with cach other, could gencrate @ pattern of chemical concentrations encompassing and orga: that is, a self-organizing process of new form generation (Goodwin, 1904; uring, 152), In this scheme, a *stew” of chemicals (represented by mathematical ele: ments) originally without form as such (depicted im Figure 2.9 in the box on the left containing a random distributions of arrows going in different directions), develops novel patterns (the wave forms in the right box) due to the dynamics of the nonlinear equations used and the instabilities which are then generated, thereby bringing about novel order in the sys tem, Such instabilities are cognate to both the nonlinearity-induced bifur cations of NDS and the phase transition critical points where the systems in question fail to dampen fluctuations. The presence of mstability as a jergence of new order comes about has now become a cor nerstone of complexity theory millions of cells, Emergence of Novel Order in Self Organizing Systems— Synergetics and Far-From-Equilibrium Thermodynamics The emphasis on processes of self-onzanization ax the key to the emergence of novel order was taken up after Turing by the respective schools of Haken and Prigogine in their laboratory research. Haken hasimage not availableimage not availableimage not available42. J, GOLDSTEIN FLOTILLA SHUTTLE SPACESHIP Figure 2.11 Emergent structures in the Game of Life (from Poundstone, 1985) quite complex although they emerge the connections among the cells Even more pertinent is that the strength, number, and quality of con nectivities among people or groups can be modeled by these kinds of ‘computational simulations with their cells, and rules among cells, anc nnections among the cells. Experimenters ean change the rules, that i, qualities of connectivity, ancl then observe how these changes infhience the emergence of new patterns which chemiselves can then be investi gated. Thuis, we get a glimpse of the huge potential such sinnulati for further investigations into emengence ‘The study of cellular scons has evolved under the name “artificial life" because the exploration of cellar awiomata and their patterns has Jed to insights into the way struetite is built up in biological and other complex systems (€-g., see Adami, 1998; Fontana & Buss, 1996; Langton, 1996; Reitman, 1993). Arvficial life evolves through various forms of recombination and randomization strategies, here copying methods used by evolution to bring about novelty (Holland, 1991, 1908). Related elec tronic arrays are the N/K models with “N” standing for number of nodes and "K” for number of connections, terminology which betrays the graph theoretical nature of much of this research as discussed above. Out of his rom very simple niles governing.image not availableimage not availableimage not available46 J, GOLDSTEIN Bertekamp, E, Conway J & Guy, R.2001). Maning sens for your mathematica ass Wol. 1). New York: A. Peters Benge, P, Pomea, VS Vidal, ©. (1954), Ob sii dhan: Tove a ater ‘abproc totwsbudence (UL. Tuckerman, Trans). New York: Wik. Blitz, D. (1992) Erergent covutions Oualitve novelty wed the levs of matty. Dor recht, Netherkands: Kw Chaosworkshop A and, (nd). Retrieved August 5, 2006 fom hupy ‘ww. uandlerbilt edivAnSipsychologyieogscichaos workshop Workshop hun! Ciuehfild, J. 0999). The eae of emergence: Commutation, denon, and induction (Santa Fe Inatiente working paper # 9103-016), Santa Te, NM Santa Fe Insti tate tus, KK Holmes, P (1096). Clea sucountere The origins of chaos ond stabil Princeton: Princeton University Press Depew D,, & Weber, B, (1996). Baran ening: Spies ehnanies and the goat gy of mataral selon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Pres Dupuy, |. (2000), The mechoniztion of mind (M. Debevoise, Trans). Prineeton, Np Princeton University Ps. Dyson, G. (1998). Darin among th wachines The esolion of gba nalligence, Bose ton Perses Books, Fontan, W. & Buss 1. (1996). The hassier of objects: rom dynamical systems toned onganizations [a]. Cast eA. Karlgvst (Lc), Boundaries end ber fort On the lonts to sentfc huouledge (pp. 55-113). Reading, MA: Rerseus hooks Forvester, J. W.(.961),Fustrial dynamics, Cambridge, MA: Paductviy Press Goldstein, J. (1969). Finengence as a custuet History anal isues. Emergence: A Jovernal of Conpleiy Issn Orgenzaion ond Management, 1(1) 39 Goldstein, |. (2003). The construction of emergence andes, or how to resist the temptition of hylozoism. Noufncar Dynomis, Peleg, an Life sees, 78, 205-314 Goldstein, J (2005). Fling with paradox: Eonengenee erative process. and set transcending constructions. Capa Seicnee 2004. Washington, DC: Washing ton Academy of Sience Goodin, . (1094), Hew the oped hanged st ss The exctton of comple New ‘York: Charles Scribner's Sons Taken, 1 (1981). The science of oncom: Syuergeis. New York: Van Nestand enol Haken, H. (1087) Synengetics. In FE. Yates, A. Garfinkel, D. Walter, & G. Yates (Gas), Salforgan:ing stom: The emergence of onker (pp. 899-613). New York len Press. Tolland, J. (1903). Hidden oder: How adapnton us compli. Reating, MA ‘Adelson Wesley Land, J (1908). Emerge: Frm elas to order. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Hodes, (1002), Alan Tering: The ejgna. New York: Vintage Jones, F (2008). Organizing relations and emergence. In R- Standish, H. Abbas, & M Below (Eds), niet fe VIN (pp. 418-422). Cambridge, MA: NIT Diesimage not availableimage not availableimage not available50. R.R, VALLACHER and A. NOWAK With the dawn of the twenty-first century; social psychology shows signs of full eincle, returning to roots established in the first all of last eentury. During that seminal period, several psychologists, philosophers, and sociologists provided a foundation for the fledgling discipline that ‘was firmly anchored in the dynamic nature of human social experiens Such pioneers as James (1890), Cooley (1902), Mead (1934), Lewin (1986), and Asch (1946) all emphasized the multiplicity of interacting forces operating in individual minds and in soeial groups and the poten: tial for sustained patterns of change resulting from such complexity. They also recognized the converse of dynamism and complenity: a desite for stability and simplicity, mirrored in che individual's press for mental ‘eoherence and in the tendency for groups to strive for coordination in members’ thoughts, feelings, and actions. These foundational features of personal and social Iife—complesity and dynamism, coherence and sta bility—never fully disappeared from social psychology, but neither were they fully exploited in theory and research as the field moved! beyond the insights of its founding fathers to stake its claim asa legitimate area of sc entific inquiry. Only with the relatively recent advent of nonlinear dynam. ical systems theory has social psychology spawned paradigms designed to capture the dynamics that lie at the heart of virtually all intrapersonal, interpersonal, and collective phenomena, ‘Our aim in this chapter is to characterize the re-emergence of the dynamical perspective in social psychology. We will not attempt to describe every manifestation of this perspective. Such an attempt may have been realizable in the 1990s (see, e.g., Vallacher & Nowak, 19a) ‘when dynamical social psychology was just beginning to achieve momen tum, Since that time, there has been a proliferation of innovative research strategies—some forwarding formal models implementec| in computer simulations, others offering empirical means for capturing the dynamies of personal, interpersonal, andl societal processes—each warranting & Jengthy treatment in its own right. Rather, we will highlight what we feel to be the essential clements that find expression in otherwise distinct the ach strategies, with special emphasis on those that center fn interpersonal processes.! We begin with an overview of basic concepts from the study of nonl car dynamical systems that are directly relevant to the subject matter of social psychology. ‘These concepts, despite their intuitive appeal, are diff ‘cult (@ identify and investigate within traditional approaches to soo chology. These difficulties m effect provide a rationale for the imph emphasis of complexity arid dynamism in much of mainstream social psy ‘chology. We then offer a perspective—dynamical minimalist—that pro vides a workable entrée into the nature and expression of dynamic processes at different levels of social reality: This approach is exemplified ries and reimage not availableimage not availableimage not available54 R.R, VALLACHER and A. NOWAK Vallacher, 2001; Nowak, Vallachet, Kus, & Urbaniak, 2005), with a trajec tory that resembles phase transitions in physical systems (Lewenstein, Nowak, & Latané, 1993), Such nonlinear societal transitions ean render the society vulnerable to subsequent rebounds of the earlier ideologies and highly responsive to threats and new information, and they ean pro- mote a period of sustained oscillation between conflicting worldviews (Nowak & Vallacher, 2001), Attractors Hychological systems display intrinsic dynamics, but as noted by the founding fathers of social psychology (fames, Lewin, Asch, etc.) they also demonstrate stability and remarkable resistance to change. Each day pro: vides vast amounts of information relevant to social judgment and social relations, much of it mutually contradictory, yet people nonetheless man. age to forge and maintain coherent patterns of thought and behavior their social lives. Individuals in a close relationship, for example, may experience a wide variety of thoughts and feclings about one another, but over time each person's mental state is likely to converge on positive sen- timent toward the other, Despite the dynamic mature of personal and interpersonal experience, then, the crajectory of people’s mental, affec- tive, and behavioral states tends to converge on relatively narrow seis of specific states or on patterns of change eween specific states. These states or patterns of change are referred to as afractors. The presence of an attractor for a dynamical system implies not only convergence of intrinsic dynamics on a stnall set of states or a pattern of change between states, but also resistance of the system to external per turbation. When a system is at its atraetor; ic tencls to maintain that state despite forces and information that bold potential for destabilizing that state. Although external influences ean in principle move the system to almost any state, the system will relatively quickly return to one of its Iynamical perspective, many important and well-docu: mented psychological processes imply the & tor Self regulation, for example, involves resistance to tempcations and distrac tions, impulse control, and the maintenance of states corresponding to standards of regulation (ef. Carver & Scheier, 1999, 2002; Vallacher & Nowak, 1999). In similar fashion, psychological reactance (Brehm & Brehm, 1966), self-esteem maintenance (Fesser, Martin, & Cornell, 1996), and selF-verification (Swanin, L990) all reflect a tendency of the cognitive system to converge on a particular mental state and to resist outsice forces that threaten to distodge the person's opinions and beliefs from that state ence of an atteimage not availableimage not availableimage not available58. R.R, VALLACHER and A. NOWAK change. By specifying possibilities for a. syste have yet 1 be observed oF experienced, the concept of latent attractor goes beyond the traditional notion of equilibrium. Critical changes in a s¥stem might not bee relleeted in the observable state of the sester ation or destruction of a latent attractor representing a potential state that is currently invisible to all concerned The implications of latent attractors have recently been explored in the context of social relations characterized by seemingly intractable contlict (Coleman et al, 2007: Nowak, Valkicher, Bui Wreosinska, & Coleman, in press), Consider intergroup relations, for example. Although factors such as objectification, dehumanization, and stereotyping of outgroup mem bers ate preconditions for the development of mtractable conllict (Cole ‘man, 2003; Deutsch, 1973), their immediate impact may not be apparent. Instead, these factors may gradually create a latent attractor to whieh the system can abruptly itch in response to a provocation that seems rela: tively minor; even trivial. But by the same token, efforts at conflict resol tion that seem fruitless in the short run may have the effeet of ereating @ Jatent positive attractor for inter-group rekttions, thereby establishing @ potential relationship to which the groups cam switch if other conditions permit. The existence of a latent positive attractor can promote a rapid de-escalation of conflict, even between groups with a Tong history of and seemingly intractable conflie. Periedie Atrators. Rather than converging on a stable value over time, some systems display sustained rhythmie or oscillatory behavior. A tempo ral pattern conforming to this tendency is referred t© as a periodic or limiteyele attractor. Periodicity is clearly associated with many biological phenomena, such as circadian thythms anc menstrual cycles (cf. Glass & Mackey, 1988), but this dynamic tendeney may also underlie important psychological phenomena (Gottman, 1979). Moods, for example, have been shewn to have a periodic structure, offen corresponding to a weekly ovde (e:, Brown & Moskowitz, 1998; Larsen, 1987; Larsen & Kasimatis, 1990). Investigation of the intrinsic dynamics associated with both social Judgment (Vallacher ct al, 1994) and self-evaluation (Vallacher, Nowak, ‘chlich, & Rockloil, 2002), meanishile, has demonstrated that the stream of thought often oscillates betscen positive ancl negative assess ‘ments, sometimes in accordance with remarkably fast time scales. Periodic structure has also been shown to characterize human action (Newtson, 1994) and is a feature of social interaction as well (e.g., Beek & Hopkins, 1992; Goutman, 1979 Nezlek, 1993) It may be difficult to distinguish a periodic attractor from the existence of multiple fixed-point attractors. In both cases, the system displays movement between different states over time. The distinction centers on the regularity of the movement benseen states and the role of externalimage not availableimage not availableimage not available62. R.R, VALLACHER and . NOWAK level can be reduced (0 the relation between frustration and aggression at the level of individuals Such isomorphism is not assumed in dynamical models. To the con: ‘wary, the rules operating at one level are likely to generate wholly diller ent rules at a higher level. In our sasiety of self model of self-structure, for instance, we implemented very simple rules concerning the integ self-relevant information (Nowak, Vallacher, Tesser, & Borkowski, We assumed only that each element of information concerning the sel! ned the prevailing valence (i.e, positivity or negativity} of related elements. Repeated iterations of this simple rule of influence generated several interesting but largely unanticipated consequences at the global level of self-concept, inchiding the differentiation of self-structure into locally coherent regions (e.g., social roles) of contrasting valence, resis tance to discrepant incoming information (e.g., negative social feedback), and the emergence of self-esteem and self-certainty Emergence refers to propertics on the system level that cannot be derived from properties of the elements comprising the system. This rep- resents somewhat of a paradox for theory construction, Ina system char acterized by emergence, how can knowledge of lower-level elements serve as an explanation of higher-level properties? This question can be resolved by highlighting the centrality of computer sirmulations to dynam: ical minimalism. With computer models, one can specily the properties of system clements and the rules of interaction among these elements When the elements interact over time according to the specified rules, one observes dynamies at the system level that were not assumed or pro: grammed for the individual elements. In this sense, computer simulations allow for a theory constructed at one level of psychological reality to be tested ata different level of psychological reality omputer simulations arc essential to the minimalist approach for another reason. The properties of individual elements are often uninter esting, even trivial, and the interactions among such elements with these properties may have minor impact on the properties at the system level. Some propertics of individual elements, however, may have profound impact on the system's higher-order properties when the elements inter- act over time, It may not be obvious in advance which properties are triv jal and which are crucial to. emergence. ‘the goal of dynamical minimalism is make this distinction and build a model that incorporates only the variables that are critical for the emergence of macro level prop- erties, Computer simulations allow one to systematically vary the assump: tions concerning different properties of elements and their interactions, and observe which assumptions result in noteworthy and meaningful ‘changes at the macro level. The properties of elements that do not have consequences at the system level can be omitted from the model. Inimage not availableimage not availableimage not available65. R.R, VALLACHER and A. NOWAK These to group-level outcomes, referred to as polarization and elustir ing, are routinely observed in computer simulations (cf. Latane, Nowak, & Liu, 1994). They are reminiscent of well-documented social processes. As demonstrated in empivieal research on group dynamies (eg, Myers & Lamm, 1976), the average attitude in a group becomes polarized in the direction of the prevailing attitude as a result of group discussion. This process reflects the greater influence of the majority opinion. In the ini tial (random) configuration (Figure 3.2a), the average proportion of neighbors holding a given opinion (pro or con} reflects the proportion of this opinion in the total group. ‘The average group member, in other words, is surrounded by more majority than minority members, which results in more minority members being converted to the majority posi tion than viee versa. OF course, some majority members are converted to the minority position because they happen to be Located close to an espe: