eus; people are people, not cogs in a machine. While this is true of all businesses, indeed all organisations, somehow it is particularly true of professional services firms, in which traditional capital (plant and machinery, etc) is minimal, and human capital (people, their behaviour, practices, knowledge, etc) is dominant. Management guided by the principles of complexity science constitutes a style that is very different from the management model based on the ideas of Frederick Taylor. The type of leadership required is very different too.

Like traditional theory, complexity theory

In this article I will discuss complexity theory and complexity science. We will also look in to the positive and negative sides of the strategic planning process from different points of views.

There is a new scientific renaissance in the making. It will usher in new industries, alter how businesses compete, and change how companies are managed said Richard T. Pascale. He was referring to complexity science or complexity theory. Complexity theory deals with systems that show complex structures in time or space, often hiding simple, deterministic rules. This theory contends that once these rules are found, it will be possible to make effective predictions and even to effectuate control of the apparent complexity. Complexity theory, or, to be more precise, the science of complexity, is the study of emergent order in what are otherwise very disorderly systems.

A recent paper by Davenport in the MIT Sloan Management Review bemoans the lack of a Frederick Taylor or Henry Ford for knowledge workers. Organisations, according to Taylor, are like machines; people are like cogs in those machines. Processes can be stripped down and streamlined for greater efficiency. The best management, said Taylor, is a true science, resting upon clearly defined laws, rules and principles. Henry Ford took this line of thinking and applied it to the manufacture of cars, breaking down the industrial process into a series of repetitive tasks performed by semi-skilled but well-paid employees, working beside a slow-moving production line. In this way, Frederick Taylor’s ideas came to underpin many of the ways of doing things which gave rise to the new industrial age at the start of the 20th century. Natural science in the meantime has moved on. The deterministic, closed system world of Newtonian physics has been changed forever. Complexity theory views the world in terms of systems; not the linear, mechanistic systems of classical physics, but complex, non-linear, highly interactive systems complex adaptive systems in the language of complexity. Complexity provides a rich vein for new thinking on leadership and management. Perhaps Davenport is wrong. Perhaps there is a new science which is highly applicable to the leadership and management of professionals and other knowledge workers.

Businesses are complex adaptive systems, living companies according to De Geus; people are people, not cogs in a machine. While this is true of all businesses, indeed all organisations, somehow it is particularly true of professional services firms, in which traditional capital (plant and machinery, etc) is minimal, and human capital (people, their behaviour, practices, knowledge, etc) is dominant. Management guided by the principles of complexity science constitutes a style that is very different from the management model based on the ideas of Frederick Taylor. The type of leadership required is very different too.

Like traditional theory, complexity theory a

se rules are found, it will be possible to make effective predictions and even to effectuate control of the apparent complexity. Complexity theory, or, to be more precise, the science of complexity, is the study of emergent order in what are otherwise very disorderly systems.

A recent paper by Davenport in the MIT Sloan Management Review bemoans the lack of a Frederick Taylor or Henry Ford for knowledge workers. Organisations, according to Taylor, are like machines; people are like cogs in those machines. Processes can be stripped down and streamlined for greater efficiency. The best management, said Taylor, is a true science, resting upon clearly defined laws, rules and principles. Henry Ford took this line of thinking and applied it to the manufacture of cars, breaking down the industrial process into a series of repetitive tasks performed by semi-skilled but well-paid employees, working beside a slow-moving production line. In this way, Frederick Taylor’s ideas came to underpin many of the ways of doing things which gave rise to the new industrial age at the start of the 20th century. Natural science in the meantime has moved on. The deterministic, closed system world of Newtonian physics has been changed forever. Complexity theory views the world in terms of systems; not the linear, mechanistic systems of classical physics, but complex, non-linear, highly interactive systems complex adaptive systems in the language of complexity. Complexity provides a rich vein for new thinking on leadership and management. Perhaps Davenport is wrong. Perhaps there is a new science which is highly applicable to the leadership and management of professionals and other knowledge workers.

Businesses are complex adaptive systems, living companies according to De Geus; people are people, not cogs in a machine. While this is true of all businesses, indeed all organisations, somehow it is particularly true of professional services firms, in which traditional capital (plant and machinery, etc) is minimal, and human capital (people, their behaviour, practices, knowledge, etc) is dominant. Management guided by the principles of complexity science constitutes a style that is very different from the management model based on the ideas of Frederick Taylor. The type of leadership required is very different too.

Like traditional theory, complexity theory

management, said Taylor, is a true science, resting upon clearly defined laws, rules and principles. Henry Ford took this line of thinking and applied it to the manufacture of cars, breaking down the industrial process into a series of repetitive tasks performed by semi-skilled but well-paid employees, working beside a slow-moving production line. In this way, Frederick Taylor’s ideas came to underpin many of the ways of doing things which gave rise to the new industrial age at the start of the 20th century. Natural science in the meantime has moved on. The deterministic, closed system world of Newtonian physics has been changed forever. Complexity theory views the world in terms of systems; not the linear, mechanistic systems of classical physics, but complex, non-linear, highly interactive systems complex adaptive systems in the language of complexity. Complexity provides a rich vein for new thinking on leadership and management. Perhaps Davenport is wrong. Perhaps there is a new science which is highly applicable to the leadership and management of professionals and other knowledge workers.

Businesses are complex adaptive systems, living companies according to De Geus; people are people, not cogs in a machine. While this is true of all businesses, indeed all organisations, somehow it is particularly true of professional services firms, in which traditional capital (plant and machinery, etc) is minimal, and human capital (people, their behaviour, practices, knowledge, etc) is dominant. Management guided by the principles of complexity science constitutes a style that is very different from the management model based on the ideas of Frederick Taylor. The type of leadership required is very different too.

Like traditional theory, complexity theory

ld of Newtonian physics has been changed forever. Complexity theory views the world in terms of systems; not the linear, mechanistic systems of classical physics, but complex, non-linear, highly interactive systems complex adaptive systems in the language of complexity. Complexity provides a rich vein for new thinking on leadership and management. Perhaps Davenport is wrong. Perhaps there is a new science which is highly applicable to the leadership and management of professionals and other knowledge workers.

Businesses are complex adaptive systems, living companies according to De Geus; people are people, not cogs in a machine. While this is true of all businesses, indeed all organisations, somehow it is particularly true of professional services firms, in which traditional capital (plant and machinery, etc) is minimal, and human capital (people, their behaviour, practices, knowledge, etc) is dominant. Management guided by the principles of complexity science constitutes a style that is very different from the management model based on the ideas of Frederick Taylor. The type of leadership required is very different too.

Like traditional theory, complexity theory

eus; people are people, not cogs in a machine. While this is true of all businesses, indeed all organisations, somehow it is particularly true of professional services firms, in which traditional capital (plant and machinery, etc) is minimal, and human capital (people, their behaviour, practices, knowledge, etc) is dominant. Management guided by the principles of complexity science constitutes a style that is very different from the management model based on the ideas of Frederick Taylor. The type of leadership required is very different too.

Like traditional theory, complexity theory also concerns itself with processes and how these influence employee behaviour. The concept that procedures may be designed to motivate is arguable from a contemporary social science perspective. For e.g Herzberg’s hygiene factors, stated simple, that a procedure as a hygiene factor does not motivate. In terms of complexity as a dynamic system, Locke’s theory (notes that based on his values/agent/event factors, procedures do in fact motivate) offers both negative and positive feedback loops, providing non-linear causality and the possibility of internally generated cyclical behaviors and non-equilibrium.

The view of organizations as complex adaptive systems suggests that organizations gather information about their surroundings, themselves and their own behavior and then use this information for adapting to and coevolving with their environments. From the view of complexity theory organizations in which there are a large number of ties or connections, widely distributed, are more capable of variety in their behavior which in turn leads to adaptability. According to Weick, without such variety organizations will miss important data points, will oversimplify their view of what is happening in the environment, and will generally be unable to respond to the high levels of variation among elements in the environment.