Complex Adaptive Systems

Understanding complex adaptive systems (CAS) brings insight into understanding

organizations (Laureate (Producer), 2013a). A network is a set of agents and links, and a system

is a set of interacting agents connected by links (Laureate (Producer), 2013a). These agents

exhibit or perform some function (Laureate (Producer), 2013a). In a complex system, agents are

a group of networks far from equilibrium, respond to negative and positive feedback, and go

through abrupt changes (Laureate (Producer), 2013a). Considering agents as people, it is the

processes of these changes that help managers understand the impact of changes within a

complex adaptive system on a transformation in an organization; and on leadership and

innovation in organizations.

Analysis: Impact of Changes within a CAS on a Transformation in an Organization

As a CAS changes, a change in an organization or transformation in an organization

occurs as well. Organizations are CAS that comprise of agents or people who experiment,

explore, self-organize, learn and adapt to changes in their environment (Carlisle & McMillan,

2006). They exist at various levels such as individual and team, and at larger levels of CAS, such

as their economic, social and political environments (Carlisle & McMillan, 2006). These

adaptive systems are far different from those that are merely complex, in that they adapt (Carlisle

& McMillan, 2006). People or organizations as CAS are clever at self-organizing, manipulating

their environments, and turning thing towards their own advantage, but most of all at learning to

adapt (Carlisle & McMillan, 2006). Their ability to learn strengthens self-organizing behaviors

including those of exploration and experimentation (Carlisle & McMillan, 2006). CAS are able

to take short-term exploitation actions as required and invest in longer-term exploration actions

as needed because they are able to adapt to the environmental circumstances in which they find
themselves (Carlisle & McMillan, 2006). Depending on the conditions in which the system finds

itself, its actions are determined, and the system responds accordingly in a self-organizing

reaction, therefore, not differentiating between the long-term and the short-term actions (Carlisle

& McMillan, 2006). Managers who analyze organizations in terms of CAS use complexity

sciences to simulate their environments and help them determine leadership roles and the impact

of CAS on innovation.

Explanation: Impact of CAS on Leadership and Innovation

Scholars suggest that leaders should envision their organizations as systems connected

with other systems (Walden University, 2014). The potential impact of CAS on leadership

within an organization helps managers understand the complexity of organizations and as

systems. Leadership theory must transition to new standpoints that justify the complex adaptive

needs of organizations (Lichtenstein, Uhl-Bien, Marion, Seers, Orton, & Schreiber). Leadership

contrary to leaders is a dynamic process that emerges between people and ideas (Lichtenstein,

Uhl-Bien, Marion, Seers, Orton, & Schreiber). Leadership is a dynamic that extends beyond the

limits of the capabilities of individuals alone; it is the product of interaction, tension, and

exchange rules governing changes in perception and understanding (Lichtenstein, Uhl-Bien,

Marion, Seers, Orton, & Schreiber). This is a dynamic of adaptive leadership and provides

important insight about the nature of leadership and its outcomes in organizational fields

(Lichtenstein, Uhl-Bien, Marion, Seers, Orton, & Schreiber). The term contributed to this new

era of leadership is complexity leadership theory (Lichtenstein, Uhl-Bien, Marion, Seers, Orton,

& Schreiber). Complexity leadership theory is a leadership theory that promotes a new way of

viewing leadership and working with individuals in an organization.

2006). The potential impact of CAS on innovation within an organization is key to organizations

that are stable or either working on the edge of chaos (Carlisle & McMillan, 2006). Innovation

ability is a property of CAS and learning is fundamental to its success (Carlisle & McMillan,

2006). Cheng and Van de Ven suggest that in stable conditions, innovation has a tendency to be

a narrowing and converging process of testing, while in chaotic conditions it is a process of

expansion, divergence, and discovery (as cited in Carlisle & McMillan, 2006). An example of

this is an accounting department in stable condition but not so stable that if fails to respond to

needs for new practices and procedures reflecting changes in production, sales or research

(Carlisle & McMillan, 2006). Carlisle and Mcmillan (2006) suggest as CASs organizations need

to dance between the edge of chaos and the edge of stability if they are to create a sustainable

innovation advantage. With this information, managers can learn how to establish frameworks

that help them toggle their organizations without extremity in one way or the other in creating

innovative success.

Extending the Conversation

In extending the conversation further, Stacey (2011) notes that with the exception of

Allen and Marion, most organizational complexity writers avoid exploring the implications of

radical unpredictability, and therefore retain conventional notions of control and continue to

argue within the dominant ideologies of control, harmony and conformity. Why is it so hard for

writers to promote exploring implications of radical unpredictability? Is it too complex to

explain, generate a point, or is it just a belief in notions of control? In addition, considering an

leadership and in innovation?

Conclusion

In conclusion, CAS helps bring insight into understanding organizations. As CAS

change, organizations change as well. The potential impact of CAS on leadership within an

organization helps managers understand the complexity of organizations and as systems. The

potential impact of CAS on innovation within an organization is key to organizations and their

complexity of changes. Finally, in the field of research and complexity sciences, CAS theory still

presents challenges.

References

Carlisle, Y., & McMillan, E. (2006). Innovation in organizations from a complex adaptive

systems perspective. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8(1), 2–9. Retrieved from

Carlisle and Mcmillan (2006) suggest as CASs organizations need to dance between the

edge of chaos and the edge of stability if they are to create a sustainable innovation

advantage. With this information, managers can learn how to establish frameworks that

help them toggle their organizations without extremity in one way or the other in creating

innovative success.

Carlisle, Y., & McMillan, E. (2006). Innovation in organizations from a complex adaptive

systems perspective. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8(1), 2–9. Retrieved from

Emergence: Complexity &

Volume=11&Issue=2&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Laureate Education (Producer). (2013a). Analyzing complex adaptive systems [Video file].

Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu

Lichtenstein, B. B., Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Orton, J. D., & Schreiber, C. (2006).

Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive

systems. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8(4), 2–12. Retrieved from

http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=bth&AN=24083897&scope=site

Stacey, R. D. (2011). Strategic management and organisational dynamics: The challenge of

complexity. (6th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Walden University (2014). Foundations for Doctoral Business [Discussion Week 5]. DDBA-

8161 Business Strategy and Innovation for Competitive Advantage. Retrieved from

https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=

%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id

%3D_5417005_1%26url%3D

Reply to Kimberly Combs

Thank you for your informative contribution to this week’s discussion. Your introduction

to gaunxi is appreciated and worthy of continuous research in comparison to CAS. In answering

your question of how far CAS should be advanced in organizations, I introduce the Japanese

term, kaizen. Kaizen, which was first introduced in the literature in 2002, means continuous
improvement (Suarez-Barraza & Miguel-Davila, 2014). As long as managers of organizations

desire continuous improvement. CAS theory should be advanced to limits of known research

regarding its effectiveness. Complexity in organizational studies is still a new field and requires

further empirical research because the concepts in managing CAS leads to questions that need to

be answered in order for organizations to continue to be successful (Carlisle & McMillan, 2006).

As far as the risk associated in overdoing it, there are none, CAS are mostly self-regulating.

References

Carlisle, Y., & McMillan, E. (2006). Innovation in organizations from a complex adaptive

systems perspective. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8(1), 2–9. Retrieved from

http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=bth&AN=20399592&scope=site

Suárez-Barraza, M. F., & Miguel-Dávila, J. Á. (2014). Assessing the design, management and

improvement of Kaizen projects in local governments. Business Process Management

Journal, 20(3), 392–411. doi:10.1108/BPMJ-03-2013-0040