As últimas notícias da EcoAgência[ Página Inicial - Buscar - ]
As últimas notícias da EcoAgênciaDe: - EXCLUSIVO - EcoAgência de Notícias
Data: 26-jan-03
Hora: 07:25:18
Palestra sobre Complexidade e Administração proferida por Fritjof Capra em Porto Alegre, no anfiteatro do Hospital de Clínicas, na oficina organizada pela Escola de Administração da UFRGS no dia 24 de janeiro de 2003 durante o 3° Fórum Social Mundial:
by Fritjof Capra
One of the foremost signs of present-day society is the presence of massively complex systems that increasingly permeate almost every aspect of our lives. There is a growing recognition that the new technological complexities have brought with them a business and organizational environment that is almost unrecognizable from the point of view of traditional management theory and practice.
Moreover, as if that were not alarming enough, it is becoming ever more apparent that our complex industrial systems, both organizational and technological, are the main driving force of global environmental destruction, and thus the main threat to the long-term survival of humanity. To build a sustainable society for our children and future generations — the great challenge of our time — we need to fundamentally redesign many of our technologies and social institutions so as to bridge the wide gap between human design and the ecologically sustainable systems of nature. This means that organizations need to undergo fundamental changes, both in order to adapt to the new business environment and to become ecologically sustainable.
Indeed, organizational change has become a dominant theme in the management literature. However, although we hear about many successful attempts to transform organizations, the overall track record is very poor. In recent surveys, CEOs reported again and again that their organizational change efforts did not yield the promised results. Instead of managing new organizations, they ended up managing the unwanted side effects of their efforts.
At first glance, this situation seems paradoxical. When we look around in our natural environment, we see continuous change, adaptation, and creativity; and yet, our business organizations seem to be incapable of dealing with change. I have come to believe that the roots of this paradox lie in the dual nature of human organizations. On the one hand, they are social institutions designed for specific purposes, such as making money for their shareholders, or managing the distribution of political power. At the same time, organizations are communities of people who interact with one another to build relationships, help each other, and make their daily activities meaningful at a personal level.
These two aspects of organizations correspond to two very different types of change. Many CEOs are disappointed about their change efforts in large part because they see their company as a well-designed tool for achieving specific purposes, and when they attempt to change its design they want predictable, quantifiable change in the entire structure. However, the designed structure always intersects with the organization's living individuals and communities for whom change cannot be designed.
To resolve the problem of organizational change, we first need to understand the natural change processes that are embedded in all living systems. Once we have that understanding, we can begin to design the processes of organizational change accordingly and to create human organizations that mirror life's adaptability, diversity, and creativity.
The approach I would like to outline for you is inspired by recent scientific breakthroughs that have led to a new understanding of living systems. In the time I have, I can only give you a brief summary, and I have to refer you to my new book, The Hidden Connections, for further details.
living networks
The central characteristic of a living system is its metabolism. It is a ceaseless flow of energy and matter through a network of chemical reactions, which enables a living organism to continually generate, repair, and perpetuate itself. The understanding of metabolism includes two basic aspects. One is the continuous flow of energy and matter — in other words, of food — through the system; the other aspect is the network of chemical reactions that processes the food, and forms the biochemical basis of all biological structures, functions, and behavior. The emphasis here is on "network."
One of the most important insights of the systemic understanding of life is the recognition that networks are the basic pattern of organization of all living systems. Ecosystems are understood in terms of food webs (i.e., networks of organisms); organisms are networks of cells; and cells are networks of molecules. The network is a pattern that is common to all life. Wherever we see life, we see networks.
Life in the social realm can also be understood in terms of networks, but here we are not dealing with chemical reactions; we are dealing with communications. Living networks in human communities are networks of communications.
Closer examination of all these living networks shows that their key characteristic is that they are self-generating. In a cell, for example, all the biological structures are continually produced, repaired, and regenerated by a network of chemical reactions. In a social network, each communication creates thoughts and meaning, which give rise to further communications, and thus the entire network generates itself.
Living networks continually create, or recreate themselves by transforming or replacing their components. In this way they undergo continual structural changes while preserving their web-like patterns of organization.
choosing to be disturbed
Now, a very important property of all living systems is that the environment only triggers the structural changes; it does not specify or direct them. The living system is autonomous; it responds to a disturbance in its own, self-organizing way. This means that you can never direct a living system; you can only disturb it.
More than that, the system not only specifies its structural changes; it also specifies which disturbances from the environment will trigger them. In other words, a living system maintains the freedom to decide what to notice and what will disturb it.
So, how does a living system decide when to be disturbed? Well, different systems will be disturbed by different things. What we notice depends on who we are. It depends on the system's structure. This is why the interaction of living systems with their environment is called “structural coupling.” The system is coupled with its environment in such a way that each interaction, each “disturbance,” results in structural changes.
Now, as a living system responds to disturbances with structural changes, these changes will alter its structure which, in turn, will alter the system's future behavior. In other words, a structurally coupled system is a learning system. Continual structural changes in response to the environment — and consequently continuing adaptation, learning, and development — are key characteristics of the behavior of all living systems. In other words, every living system is a learning system.
To conclude my description of living networks, I need to come back to the first aspect of metabolism, the flow of energy and matter through the network. In human networks this corresponds to a flow of information and ideas. In both cases, the system needs to be open to this flow of nourishment to survive.
During the last twenty years, the dynamics of this flow of energy and matter through living networks have been studied in great detail and have led to a very important discovery.
Living systems generally remain in a stable state, even though energy and matter flows through them and their structures are continually changing. But every now and then such an open system will encounter a point of instability where there is either a breakdown or, more frequently a spontaneous emergence of new forms of order.
This spontaneous emergence of order at critical points of instability, which is often referred to simply as “emergence,” is one of the hallmarks of life. It has been recognized as the dynamic origin of development, learning, and evolution. In other words, creativity — the generation of new forms — is a key property of all living systems.
The new understanding of life that has recently emerged in science implies important lessons for the management of human organizations. Let's have a look at some of these lessons.
Living social systems, as we have seen, are self-generating networks of communications. This means that a human organization will be a living system only if it is organized as a network or contains smaller networks within its boundaries. Indeed, in recent years networks have become a major focus of attention not only in business but also in society at large and throughout a newly emerging global culture.
Within a few years, the Internet has become a powerful global network of communications, and many of the new Internet companies act as interfaces between networks of customers and suppliers. Most large corporations today are organized as decentralized networks of smaller units. In addition, they are connected to networks of small and medium businesses that serve as their subcontractors and suppliers. Similar networks exist among nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Indeed, "networking" has been one of the main activities of political grassroots organizations for many years. The environmental movement, the human rights movement, the feminist movement, the peace movement, and many other political and cultural grassroots movements have organized themselves as networks that transcend national boundaries.
With the new information and communication technologies, social networks have become all-pervasive, both within and beyond organizations. For an organization to be alive, however, the existence of social networks is not sufficient; they need to be networks of a special type. Living networks, as we have seen, are self-generating. Organizational theorists today use the term "communities of practice" for these self-generating social networks.
As far as human organizations are concerned, we can now see that their dual nature as legal and economic entities, on the one hand, and communities of people on the other, derives from the fact that various communities of practice invariably arise and develop within the organization's formal structures. These are informal networks — alliances and friendships, informal channels of communication, and other webs of relationships — that continually grow, change, and adapt to new situations.
Within every organization, there is a cluster of interconnected communities of practice. The more people are engaged in these informal networks, and the more developed and sophisticated the networks are, the better will the organization be able to learn, respond creatively to new circumstances, change, and evolve. In other words, the organization's aliveness resides in its communities of practice.
In order to maximize a company's creative potential and learning capabilities, it is crucial for managers and business leaders to understand the interplay between the organization's formal, designed structures and its informal, self-generating networks. The formal structures are sets of rules and regulations that define relationships between people and tasks, and determine the distribution of power.
The informal structures, by contrast, are fluid and fluctuating networks of communications. These communications include nonverbal forms of mutual engagement in joint enterprises, informal exchanges of skills, sharing of tacit knowledge.
In every organization, there is a continuous interplay between its informal networks and its formal structures. The formal policies and procedures are always filtered and modified by the informal networks, which allows them to use their creativity when faced with unexpected and novel situations. Ideally, the formal organization recognizes and supports its informal networks of relationships and incorporates their innovations into the organization's formal structures. learning from life
The more we know about the detailed processes involved in self-generating social networks, the more effective we will be in working with the organization's communities of practice. Let us see, then, what kinds of lessons for management can be derived from the systemic understanding of life.
We have seen that a living network responds to disturbances with structural changes, and that it chooses both which disturbances to notice and how to respond. What people notice depends on who they are as individuals, and on the cultural characteristics of their communities of practice. A message will get through to them not only because of its volume or frequency, but because it is meaningful to them.
We are dealing here with a crucial difference between a living system and a machine. A machine can be controlled; a living system can only be disturbed. To change the conventional style of management accordingly requires a shift of perception that is anything but easy. However, it also brings great rewards. Working with the processes inherent in living systems means that we do not need to spend a lot of energy to move an organization. There is no need to push, pull, or bully it to make it change. Force, or energy, are not the issue; the issue is meaning. Meaningful disturbances will get the organization's attention and will trigger structural changes.
Giving meaningful impulses rather than precise instructions may sound far too vague to managers used to striving for efficiency and predictable results. However, it is well known that intelligent, alert people rarely carry out instructions exactly to the letter. They always modify and reinterpret them, ignore some parts and add others of their own making. Sometimes, it may be merely a change of emphasis, but people always respond with new versions of the original instructions.
This is often interpreted as resistance, or even sabotage. However, we can give it quite a different interpretation. Living systems always choose what to notice and how to respond. When people modify instructions, they respond creatively to a disturbance, because this is the essence of being alive. In their creative responses, the living networks within the organization generate and communicate meaning, asserting their freedom to continually recreate themselves.
The new understanding of the resistance to mandated organizational change can be very powerful, as it allows us to work with people's creativity, rather than ignoring it, and, indeed, to transform it into a positive force. If we involve people in the change process right from the start, they will "choose to be disturbed," because the process itself is meaningful to them.
If the aliveness of an organization resides in its communities of practice, and if creativity, learning, change, and development are inherent in all living systems, how do these processes actually manifest in the organization's living networks and communities? To answer this question, we need to turn to the key characteristic of life that I mentioned a while ago — the spontaneous emergence of new order. The phenomenon of emergence takes place at critical points of instability that arise from fluctuations in the environment, amplified by feedback loops.
In a human organization, the event triggering the process of emergence may be an offhand comment, which may not even seem important to the person who made it but is meaningful to some people in a community of practice. Because it is meaningful to them, they choose to be disturbed and circulate the information rapidly through the organization's networks.
As it circulates through various feedback loops, the information may get amplified and expanded, even to such an extent that the organization can no longer absorb it in its present state. When that happens, a point of instability has been reached. The system cannot integrate the new information into its existing order; it is forced to abandon some of its structures, behaviors, or beliefs. The result is a state of chaos, confusion, uncertainty, and doubt; and out of that chaotic state a new form of order, organized around new meaning, emerges. The new order was not designed by any individual but emerged as a result of the organization's collective creativity.
This process of emergence involves several distinct stages. To begin with, there must be a certain openness within the organization, a willingness to be disturbed, in order to set the process in motion; and there has to be an active network of communications with multiple feedback loops to amplify the triggering event. The next stage is the point of instability, which may be experienced as tension, chaos, uncertainty, or crisis. At this stage, the system may either break down, or it may break through to a new state of order, which is characterized by novelty and involves an experience of creativity that often feels like magic. Since the process of emergence is thoroughly nonlinear, involving multiple feedback loops, it cannot be fully analyzed with our conventional, linear ways of reasoning, and hence we tend to experience it with a sense of mystery.
Throughout the living world, the creativity of life expresses itself through the process of emergence. The structures that are created in this process — biological structures of living organisms as well as social structures in human communities — may appropriately be called "emergent structures." Before the evolution of humans, all living structures on the planet were emergent structures. With human evolution, language, conceptual thought, and all the other characteristics of consciousness came into play. This enabled us to formulate goals and strategies, and thus to create structures by design.
Human organizations always contain both designed and emergent structures. The designed structures are the formal structures of the organization, as described in its official documents. The emergent structures are created by the organization's informal networks and communities of practice. The two types of structures are very different, as we have seen, and every organization needs both kinds. Designed structures provide the rules and routines that are necessary for the effective functioning of the organization. Designed structures provide stability.
Emergent structures, on the other hand, provide novelty, creativity, and flexibility. Emergent structures are adaptive, capable of changing and evolving. In today's complex business environment, purely designed structures do not have the necessary responsiveness and learning capability.
The issue is not one of discarding designed structures in favor of emergent ones. We need both. In every human organization there is a tension between its designed structures, which embody relationships of power, and its emergent structures, which represent the organization's aliveness and creativity. The challenge in today's turbulent business environment is to find the right balance between the creativity of emergence and the stability of design.
Finding the right balance between design and emergence seems to require the blending of two different kinds of leadership. The traditional idea of a leader is that of a person who is able to hold a vision, to articulate it clearly, and to communicate it with passion and charisma. The ability to hold a clear vision of an ideal form, or state of affairs, is something that traditional leaders have in common with designers.
The other kind of leadership consists in facilitating the emergence of novelty. This means creating conditions rather than giving directions, and using the power of authority to empower others. Both kinds of leadership have to do with creativity. Being a leader means creating a vision; it means going where nobody has gone before. It also means enabling the community as a whole to create something new. Facilitating emergence means facilitating creativity.
To facilitate emergence effectively, community leaders need to recognize and understand the different stages of this fundamental life process. As we have seen, emergence requires an active network of communications with multiple feedback loops. Facilitating emergence, therefore, means first of all building up and nurturing networks of communications.
In addition, we need to remember that the emergence of novelty is a property of open systems, which means that the organization needs to be open to new ideas and new knowledge. Facilitating emergence includes creating that openness — a learning culture in which continual questioning is encouraged and innovation is rewarded.
The experience of the critical instability that precedes the emergence of novelty may involve uncertainty, fear, confusion, or self-doubt. Experienced leaders recognize these emotions as integral parts of the whole dynamics and create a climate of trust and mutual support.
During the change process some of the old structures may fall apart, but if the supportive climate and the feedback loops in the network of communications persist, new and more meaningful structures are likely to emerge. When that happens, people often feel a sense of wonder and elation, and now the leader's role is to acknowledge these emotions and provide opportunities for celebration.
Leaders who facilitate emergence need to be aware of the detailed dynamics of all these stages. In the end, they need to be able to recognize the emergent novelty, articulate it, and incorporate it into the organization's design. Not all emergent solutions will be viable, however, and hence a culture fostering emergence must include the freedom to make mistakes. In such a culture, experimentation is encouraged and learning is valued as much as success.
Bringing life into human organizations by empowering their communities of practice not only increases their flexibility, creativity, and learning potential, but also enhances the dignity and humanity of the organization's individuals, as they connect with those qualities in themselves. In other words, the focus on life and self-organization empowers the self. It creates mentally and emotionally healthy working environments in which people feel that they are supported in striving to achieve their own goals and do not have to sacrifice their integrity to meet the goals of the organization. Let me end with this positive vision.
Fritjof Capra, Ph.D., physicist and systems theorist, is a founding director of the Center for Ecoliteracy in Berkeley. He is the author of several international bestsellers, including The Tao of Physics and The Web of Life. This lecture is based on his most recent book The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living. www.fritjofcapra.net