In his response to LO 932, Noel uses the dreaded term "managing
complexity". I consider it possible that, by the time we see our
organisations as complex adaptive systems (or intelligent systems)
the term management will have disappeared. But maybe it will
transform and remain. In the meantime, the use of the term provides
the opportunity to examine the "management", "complexity" and the
relationships between the two.
Noel says,
> As I understand it, the purpose of vertical communication is to
> manage complexity from a standpoint of maintaining control from the
> top.
Complexity refers to information. _Things_ aren't complex . They
are what they are. They become "complex" in our attempts to
understand them. The complexity arises from the level and context of
our analysis. At one level, say a surface one, they will be simple.
At another, say an extremely detailed one, they will be complicated
or even chaotic. At a level of understanding operationally, they may
be complex. In that case, we would be describing a situation where
patterns are discernible but detail is not predictable.
Does Noel mean "managing complexity" when he talks about the intent
of the existing system or does he mean managing information flow?
The distinction becomes important when we try and apply "managing" to
it. What is the essence of management? When applied to information
flow - and applied by traditional management - I'd guess that they
mean control the flows of information and limit or inhibit
complexity. Traditional management may not mind local complexity
but they do not want global or organisational complexity. That is,
they are not very interested in the emergent (a result of
complexity). They are mainly interested in the engineered.
Complexity in information cannot be managed in the traditional sense.
Complexity in its more general senses and its specific uses (such as
complex adaptive systems) cannot be managed in the traditional sense.
Management, in the traditional sense, means to control flows to produce
intended and predictable results. Traditional management at its best
takes advantage of the emergent that complexity generates. At its worst,
it supresses all possibility of emergence. But there is no place for the
encouragement of, or the design for, emergence in traditional management
concepts and approaches at an organisational level.
> If your organization wants to "promote" horizontal
> communication and integration, in essence, your organization will be
> attempting to manage complexity in the lower levels of the
> hierarchy.
The term "managing complexity in the lower levels", if it is now going to
be an intended design, calls for an operational definition of complexity
and, more imnortantly, a _new_ operational definition of "management".
That might be something like, "management refers to the design and
practices which enable the self-organising intellligence of people in
community (team or group) to generate their own learning and action."
As Noel, points out:
>This will have implications in the way your current
> management operates.
Here is, I think, the importance of providing education for managers on
the nature of complex adaptive systems. Some learning, experience, and
context will be required for the scope of change that Noel understates as
"have implications" and as he goes on to say, they won't like the changes.
At least, I suggest, until they have taken on some serious development of
themselves.
But if we can provide educational opportunities to everyone in our
organisations to "quality" then surely we can provide opportunities for
this crucial education and development to our management.
Noel goes on to say that if management sees the organisation in vertical
terms then the horizontal will be difficult. Seeing it as horizontal will
be almost as limiting. Seeing it as complex is what I find makes the
difference.
This reminds me of an experiment with cats. They raised some kittens in
an environment that had only vertical lines and others in an evnironment
that had only horizontal lines. When they then allowed them access to a
normal environment, they various abilities that each had were a direct
match for the original environment. The "verical" kittens couldn't judge
leaps upwards and the "horizontal" ones kept misjudging width. But it
comes out all right. They learned.
I suggest that a quicker route to the goal will be a brief education in
complex adaptive systems. Modelling is a long way around that might not
get there. Modelling may also be a useful tool to assist the educational
process. But simple visuals will probably do as well.
Michael McMaster
Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk