Sustainability, complexity and learning: insights from complex systems approaches

Abstract

Purpose-The purpose of this research is to explore core contributions from two different approaches to complexity management in organisations aiming to improve their sustainability,: the Viable Systems Model (VSM), and the Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS). It is proposed to perform this by summarising the main insights each approach offers to understanding organisational transformations aiming to improve sustainability; and by presenting examples of applied research on each case and reflecting on the learning emerging from them. Design/methodology/approach-An action science approach was followed: the conceptual framework used in each case was first presented, which then illustrates its application through a case study; at the first one the VSM framework supports an organisational transformation towards sustainability in a community; the second one is a quantitative case study of intended greening of two firms in the supermarket industry, taken from a CAS perspective. The learning from each case study on how they support/explain organisational learning in transformations towards more sustainable organisations was illustrated. Findings-It wase found that the VSM and the CAS approaches offer internally consistent and complementary insights to address issues of self-organisation and adaptive management for sustainability improvement: while CAS explains empowerment of bottom-up learning processes in organisations, VSM enables a learning context where self-organised networks can co-evolve for improved sustainability. Research limitations/implications-The main aspects of both theories and examples of their explanatory power to support learning in practical applications in organisations were introduced. The initial findings indicate that it will be worth studying in greater depth the contributions to organisational learning from both conceptual models and more widely comparing their applications and insights. Practical implications-The paper offers some guidance to both researchers and practitioners interested in using complex systems theories in action research-oriented projects, regarding the usability and applicability of both approaches. Originality/value-It is considered that, by better understanding organisational ability to adapt and self-regulate on crucial issues for sustainability, it may help to develop one path through the ongoing socio-ecological crisis. While much has been written about sustainability initiatives and governance from conventional perspectives, much less is known about how a complex systems framework may help to address one's pressing sustainability needs. These issues from two innovative complexity approaches as well as the value of using them in action research were illustrated.

Sustainability exploration and sustainability exploitation: from a literature review towards a conceptual framework

“…In view of the above considerations, processes are essential in terms of successful adaptation and could be considered as a way to effectively respond to the key external changes (Espinosa and Porter, 2011).…”

“…Learning and development processes are believed to be a critical path towards the sustainable development agenda (Muller and Siebenhuner, 2007). For top managers, sustainability-focused organisational learning (Molnar and Mulville, 2003) not only requires that they develop a strong sustainability vision but that they also recognise the value of bottom-up innovation, educate middle managers in sustainability policies and cultural values, incentivise new initiative development, and reward both the quantity and quality of initiative development (Espinosa and Porter, 2011).…”

On the Role of Faith in Sustainability Management: A Conceptual Model and Research Agenda

“…Affected individuals with redemptive qualities yet sustain the hope or confidence that is needed to weather short-term setbacks while reinforcing long-term commitments to improving the lives of others (McAdams and McLean 2013). Redemption-with its dependence on a manager's emotional affinity towards others and the environmentprovides the motivation to persevere in complex, nonlinear, cognitively demanding and (perhaps) chaotic environments (Metcalf and Benn 2013) that may characterise organisational change (Burnes 2005) and sustainability management (Espinosa and Porter 2011). If a firm's involvement in socially responsible projects may be prompted by a manager's redemptive activities, such as those (famously reported) of Ray Anderson from Interface (2001) or Anita Roddick (1991) from the Bodyshop, many socially responsible behaviours are in fact initiated because managers listen to market forces (Kinard et al 2003).…”

Programa Seis Sigma Auto-organizado: modelo da situação atual e necessidades de mudanças

“…As that learning requires the exchange of information and knowledge, it is essential the existence of trust and reciprocity, leading the network to collaborative behavior patterns, thus increasing the productivity of knowledge (Kash & Rycoft, 2000;Jarratt & Ceric, 2015). Other important mechanisms of self-organization of a network are the feedbacks and the coevolution of the network (Espinosa & Porter, 2011). This means that those involved in a self-organizing network have the ability to provide and receive responses to each other and evolve together as an individual and as a network.…”

“…Among the various works already carried out, we can find examples related to academic and scientific research networks (Bennett & Kidwell, 2001;Wagner & Leydesdorff, 2005), development networks of free software (Crowston et al, 2007), research and development networks in the automotive industry (Rycroft & Kash, 2004), networks of companies to improve sustainability (Espinosa & Porter, 2011), local public administration networks for economic policy development (Lee et al, 2012), networks of farmers (Dutta et al, 2005), networks of fashion industries (Schuh et al, 2008;Scherrer-Rathje et al, 2009), team management (Parker et al, 2015), among others. In all the literature reviewed, self-organizing networks were not addressed in the scope of Six Sigma programs, although there are common characteristics.…”