
Stating the case more fully (and dauntingly), Stacey (1996b)
argues:
A complexity theory of organization is built on the following
propositions:
All organizations are webs of nonlinear feedback loops connected
to other people and organizations (its environments) by webs of
nonlinear feedback loops.
Such nonlinear feedback systems are capable of operating in states
of stable and unstable equilibrium, or in the borders between
these states, that is far-from-equilibrium, in bounded instability at
the edge of chaos.
All organizations are paradoxes. They are powerfully pulled towards stability by the forces of integration, maintenance controls,
human desires for security and certainty, and adaptation to the
environment on the one hand. They are also powerfully pulled to
the opposite extreme of unstable equilibrium by the forces of division and decentralization, human desires for excitement and innovation, and isolation from the environment.
If the organization gives in to the pull to stability it fails because it becomes ossified and cannot change easily. If it gives in to the pull to instability it disintegrates. Success lies in sustaining an organization in the borders between stability and instability. This is a state of chaos, a difficult-to-maintain dissipative structure.
The dynamics of the successful organization are therefore those of irregular cycles and discontinuous trends falling within qualitative patterns. Fuzzy but recognizable categories taking the form of archetypes and templates.
Because of its own internal dynamics, a successful organization faces completely unknowable specific futures.
Agents within the system cannot be in control of its long-term future, nor can they install specific frameworks to make it successful, nor can they apply step-by-step analytical reasoning or planning or ideological controls to long-term development. Agents within the system can only do these things in relation to the short term.
Long-term development is a spontaneously self-organizing process from which new strategic directions may emerge. Spontaneous self-organization is political interaction and learning in groups. Managers have to use reasoning by analogy.
In this way managers create and discover their environments and the long-term futures of the organizations. (p. 349)
The positive side or, if you like, the “solution” involves developing learning organizations. In their field book, Senge and colleagues (2000) argue that fiat or command can never solve complex problems; only a learning orientation can.
(…)
Pfeffer and Sutton (2006, chap. 9) reinforce these ideas with their own nine implementation principles for profiting from evidence-based management.
1. Treat your organization as an unfinished prototype.
2. No brag, just facts.
3. Master the obvious and the mundane.
4. See yourself and your organization as outsiders do.
5. Power, prestige, and performance make you stubborn, stupid, and resistant to valid evidence.
6. Evidence-based management is not just for senior executives (it must permeate all levels of the organization).
7. Like everything else, you still need to sell it.
8. If all else fails, slow the spread of bad practices.
9. The best diagnostic question: What happens when people fail?
Relative to the ninth principle, Pfeffer and Sutton state that
“if you look at how the most effective systems in the world are managed, a hallmark is that when something goes wrong, people face the hard facts, learn what happened and why, and keep using those facts to keep on getting better” (p. 232).
M. Fullan, obra citada infra