Emergence as a process of self‐organizing ‐ New assumptions and insights from the study of non‐linear dynamic systems

Abstract

Complexity researchers have identified four basic assumptions underlying non‐linear dynamic systems (NDS): the assumption that change is a constant; the assumption that emergent systems are not reducible to their parts; the assumption of mutual dependence; and the assumption that complex systems behave in non‐proportional ways. In this paper I use these new assumptions as a basis for explaining why order emerges in organizations, and for uncovering a three‐stage process model of complex adaptive systems change (CASC). The insights from these NDS models are revealed through examples from two entrepreneurial firms undergoing transformative shifts in their development. These assumptions of NDS and the model of CASC may therefore be useful for understanding order creation and self‐organizing processes in work groups, project ventures, and organizations.

Leading Change and the Challenges of Managing a Learning Organisation in Hong Kong

“…Griffin and Moorehead (2011) argued that the planned approach mistakenly assumes that managing change is a linear process. Many other researchers have proven that change is non-linear and is an incremental process influenced by different environmental factors (Lichtenstein, 2000;Styhre, 2002). Critics have also argued that the model is overambitious, as it predetermines all required actions well before they are implemented.…”

Sustaining entrepreneurial business: A complexity perspective on processes that produce emergent practice

“…While there is a diversity of approaches, most researchers would agree that open, dynamic, non-linear systems provide a better basis for theorising about order creation than linear mechanics (Lichtenstein & Mendenhall, 2002), based mainly on the influential work of the Santa Fe Institute (Lewin et al, 1999). The emergence of order in any system is seen as a co-evolutionary process arising from the interaction between heterogeneous agents in the system and is characterised by constant change, mutual dependence between agents (Holland, 1998;Lichtenstein, 2000b) and sensitivity to initial conditions (Gleick, 1987).…”

“…The potential resonance of complexity theory with organisational life has been viewed by both academics and practitioners as a means of understanding organisations; this has led to the design of organisational strategies and the launch of change programmes (Lichtenstein 2000b;Stacey et al, 2002;Burnes 2005;Houchin & MacLean 2005;Lichtenstein et al 2006). As Burnes (2005) notes, while the origins of complexity theory are in mathematics, organisational complexity researchers have taken a linguistic turn, where complexity concepts are used to create a metaphorical language for change and development (Lissack, 1997), rather than computational modelling.…”

“…As part of that broader movement, the salience of complexity theory to understanding entrepreneurship is becoming recognised (Fuller & Moran 2000, 2001Lichtenstein 2000b;McKelvey, 2004), recognising the importance of both non-equilibrium systems and multiple levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research. Although different conceptual approaches are taken, it is clear that the emergence of order is a central organising principle for these authors.…”

“…Once a critical threshold is reached, non-linear selforganising processes will occur, initiating the spontaneous emergence of new levels of order in the system. At this point, new organisational goals, structure and strategy will result, a new 'attractor' in complexity terms (Lichtenstein, 2000b).…”