Organizational Emergence: The Origin and Transformation of Branson, Missouri's Musical Theaters

Abstract

We draw on complexity theory to explain the emergence of a new organizational collective, and we provide a much-needed empirical test of the theory at the collective level of analysis. Taking a case study approach, we use four dynamics of emergence posited by complexity theory's dissipative structures model—fluctuation, positive feedback, stabilization, and recombination—to explain how a collective of live musical performance theaters in Branson, Missouri, came into being and periodically transformed itself over a 100-year period. Our findings suggest a strong match between the theoretical perspective employed and the empirical processes uncovered, empirically validating the model at the collective level. The study demonstrates the value of conceptualizing evolution in terms of emergence, highlighting distinctions between the nascent complexity approach to evolution and the neo-Darwinian evolutionary approach that has dominated the theoretical conversation in organization science for the past generation. Our findings complement the insights of the dominant theoretical perspectives in organization theory, providing a more comprehensive understanding of organizational evolution by directly addressing the heretofore intractable phenomenon of emergence.

The role of leadership in emergent, self-organization

“…System-level order emerges because of interactions among entities with individual schemas at a lower level in the system (Anderson, 1999), that is, nested systems (Ashmos & Huber, 1987). In self-organizing systems, order comes from the actions of interdependent agents who exchange information, take actions, and continuously adapt to feedback about others' actions rather than from the imposition of an overall plan by a central authority (Chiles et al, 2004). Thus, complex systems are characterized as non-linear because the components that comprise them are constantly interacting with each other through a web of feedback loops (Anderson, 1999;Stacey, 1995).…”

“…Maguire & McKelvey (1999) argue that when organizations move away from stability and into the "region of complexity," adaptive tensions give rise to emergent self-organization. In fact, most argue that it is only as organizations move into far-from-equilibrium states that emergent ideas are possible, giving rise to innovation and creativity (Anderson, 1999;Chiles et al, 2004;. This brief discussion of complexity theory with its central premise of emergent self-organization, challenges us to change the way we think about leadership (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001) and abandon the notion that leaders create foreseeable futures.…”

“…A central principal of complexity theory is emergent self-organization, whereby systems achieve order because multiple local agents interact and those interactions produce unintended outcomes without the intervention of a central controller (Chiles, Meyer, & Hench, 2004). Thus, organizations take on properties and structures that are unexpected (McKelvey & Lichtenstein, in press) because people and groups interact and the results of those interactions produce perpetual novelty.…”

Organizational Attributes and the Distribution of Rewards in a Region: Managerial Firms vs. Knowledge Clusters

“…The literature analyzes industrial agglomerations from the perspectives of social networks (Sorenson 2003), the presence of spontaneous inputs (Chiles et al 2004), the effects of agglomeration economies (Krugman 1991), or the factors that shape industrial agglomeration as a long-term regional phenomenon, like the work on the identity of clusters by Romanelli and Khessina (2005). The empirical evidence is less extensive.…”

“…In so doing, we also draw attention to an issue that the organizational literature has not investigated in a significant way: differences in the dispersion of rewards, and not just in the expected value. Second, this paper is not centered on the origins of industrial agglomeration (Chiles et al 2004) or on the type of resources that are developed or exchanged, but on outcomes at the regional economic level. We offer a micro-based foundation centered on a knowledge and organizational argument (Bell andZaheer 2007, March 1991) to explain some macro differences in regional rewards.…”