I defined the subject as the emergent forms of structures in Complex Adaptive Systems, including the network organisation and its components. The result is a funding of 28 articles, which link complexity theory and new organisational structures. Each paper has been classed by areas and gives a global approach of the topic.
REVIEW OF PAST RESEARCH
“Since the open-systems view of organisations began to diffuse in the 1960’s, complexity has been a central construct in the vocabulary of organisation scientists” (Anderson - 1999), when organisations began to be seen as living systems confronted with a changing environment and forced to adapt themselves. However, the majority of the papers concerning the emergent structures appeared during the 1990’s and represent the new forms of the actual complex systems.
In order to better understand the review of the papers, it is important to notice two main points. First of all, most of the papers describe the complex factors, which induce organisations to self-organise and adopt a new structure when they move toward the edge of chaos. These reasons are explained briefly in order to focus on their impacts. Secondly, the new structural forms of complex adaptive systems will be view as network organisations. Every paper reviewed tends to explain that the emergent form of structure in complex systems is in fact the network form. This ‘basis’ will permit to focus on the components of this structure.
Indeed, some of the articles relate to the theories applied to hierarchies and boundaries. These two aspects refer to the fact that a complex adaptive system does have structure, but not a strictly hierarchical structure and those boundaries tend to become more flexible or even transparent. A second part is composed of papers, which critically relativize and review these new structural forms.
Moving from the edge of chaos - The network organisation
In the age of the knowledge based-economy, complex adaptive systems began to realise that success demanded a higher level of know-how and resource utilisation than existing internal management processes allowed. Moreover, organisational structures emerge from the behaviours that agents exhibit in response to opportunities, threats… (Rouse - 1999). Increasingly, firms turned to network structures in which “empowered teams managed not only their internal work processes, but also external relationships with upstream and downstream partners” (Elkeles, Sullivan - 1997). Network organisation, called ‘neural network’ by Cilliers (2001) and Anderson (1999), can also be seen as a ‘virtual organisation’ (Davidow, Malone - 1992; Black, Edwards - 2000; Rouse - 1999; Townsead, Demarie - 1998; Petra Bosch Siftsema - 2002) or a ‘self organising network’ (Klenk et al’s - 2000).
In their study, Black and Edwards (2000) explain that ‘a bifurcation point’ which can be described as the increase of new technologies, have been at the origin of new organisational structures. Also, Brown and Eisenhardt (1998) identified two “attractors”, which have been at the beginning of the network organisation. They are identified as the “chaos trap” and the “bureaucratic trap”. These two attractors permit to define the new set of organising rules: Organisational forms that have neither too little nor too much structure; and organisations that have an adaptive culture with semi structures and which use real time communications. Also, Cravens (1994) develops these drivers of change. Since this new way of self organising (discussed by Ashmos et al’s - 2002) has begun to develop, many theorists tried to understand and explain this self-organisation at the edge of chaos.
The network organisation has been defined in a lot of studies. Different reasons explain this choice. As Cilliers (1999) points out, “network models provide a better framework for modelling complex systems […]. The argument that network models mimic the kind of structure found in complex system is a sound one”. Indeed, “network structures are new organisational forms in which traditional hierarchical structures and functional boundaries become less important” (Sonnentag - 2000).
Many papers review ‘boundaries and hierarchies’ as the basis of organisational structures. When speed, flexibility, integration and innovation are becoming the new drivers of organisational success, complex systems have to adapt themselves to deal with their environment. Complexity theory suggests that complex systems are open systems where “the relationships amongst the components of the system are usually more important than the components themselves. Since there is a relationship between systems, specifying clearly where a boundary could be is not obvious” (Cilliers - 2001). Moreover, Zeleni (1996) adds that “all social systems, and thus all living systems, create, maintain, and degrade their own boundaries. These boundaries do not separate but intimately connect the system with its environment”. This means that structures of a complex system are made to communicate with others. Askenas (1999) defines the system as a ‘boundaryless organisation’ and describes it as “less like a fortress and more like a living organism, where its borders, are like membranes, strong enough to provide shape and definition but permeable enough to permit an easy flow of information and ideas to all parts”. Sullivan (1997) and Rahman, Zillur (2002) adds that it becomes difficult to determine where one organisation ends and another begin. Also, Anderson (1999) insists on the fact that “complex adaptive systems are nested hierarchies that contain other complex adaptive systems”. To characterise this ‘boundaryless organisation’ terms as Strategic Business Unit, Joint Venture, Alliances (Van Der Merwe - 2002; Cravens - 1994) are used. Ashkenas (1999) concludes that successful organisations will have the possibility to penetrate ‘global boundaries’ and become only one open system.
As companies move toward learner and more flexible organisational forms, many authors suggest that several internal changes are also necessary in the network organisation. They suggest that complex adaptive systems change their structures and reduce management layers and organisational bureaucracies. An analysis of the importance of hierarchies has been part of the study of complex systems for a long time. Indeed, early in 1968, Burns and Stalker identified ‘organic/organismic’ organizations, which they contrasted with ‘mechanistic’ (or bureaucratic) forms, as new organisational structures (Hales - 2002). Most recently, authors tried to define and understand the impacts of this new organisational structure. In effect, Cilliers (2000) explains that “complex organisations cannot thrive when there is too central control”. Also, Adler (1999) suggests that it is important to ‘attack’ bureaucracy by reducing the number or size of hierarchical layers. Ashkenas et al’s (2000) calls hierarchies ‘vertical boundaries’ which may change so that there are fewer levels of managers; and ‘horizontal boundaries’ which may shift so that functions are defined or departments brought together in new ways. Then, to explain the consequences of this ‘post-bureaucratic’ form, Barhami (1992) deals with the notion of ‘flexibility’ and ‘responsiveness’. Moreover, ‘freedom’ is also considered by Sullivan (1999) to determine this structure, which permits the increase of organisational decisions in all firms and at all levels. Finally, this post bureaucratic form is used with different ways in several papers. Indeed, this structure is called flat structure (Van Der Merwe - 2002), horizontal structure (Schwarz - 2002), Team-based structure (Johnson and Scholes - 2002), or even the virtual team (Townsend - 1998; Petra Bosch Siftsema - 2002).
All the papers founded argue that complex adaptive systems are now boundaryless, both internally and externally; and become ‘loosely structured organisations’ (Rouse - 1999, 2000). To conclude this explanation of the new structures of organisations, Sullivan (1997) suggests a definition of the emergent structure of complex adaptive systems adapted from the complexity theory. He explains that “cells can act alone to meet a particular need. However, by acting in concert, cells can perform more complex functions. Evolving characteristics, or learning, if shared across all cells, can create a higher order organism”. Similarly, a cellular organisation is made up of cells (self managing, autonomous business units, etc) that can operate alone but that can interact with other cells to produce a more potent and competent business mechanism. It is the combination of independence and interdependence that allows the cellular organisational form to generate and share the know-how that produces continuous innovation.
Towards a criticism of the new organisational structure
Complexity theory argues that complex systems are ‘models’. Cilliers (2001) explains “that no matter how we construct the model, it will be flawed, and we do not know in which way it is flawed”. He adds that there is a non-linear nature of the interactions in complex systems. This non-linearity will have consequences on the credibility of the model because if model of complex systems are not perfect, do they reflect reality? Indeed, Cilliers adds that our argumentation is based on a ‘descriptive’ complexity rather than an ‘ontological’ one. Then, no explanation of complex systems will be perfect. Moreover, network organisations can fail. Mile (1992) explains that they might become ‘stable systems’ and this stability can lead to ‘staleness’. This argumentation shows that every organisation is unique and that perhaps the network form does not correspond with all organisations. Also, many papers argue that the network organisation has to be reconsidered. Arguments relativize the boundaryless organisation as well as the post bureaucratic form.
Papers explain that complex systems are ‘boundaryless’ and that we cannot “accurately determine the boundaries of a system because it is opened” (Cilliers - 2000). Many papers tend to explain that this characteristic can also be an issue. Indeed, after having exposed their definition of boundaries, Richardson and Lissack (2001) make a certain critic. According to them, the ‘boundaryless’ organisation has a lack of ‘coherence’. Lissack and Roos (1999) speak about ‘the next common sense’. All explain that organisation, being comprised of people, need coherence. The presence of coherence is more likely to contribute to the accomplishment of shared purpose. “When a system is coherent, virtually, no energy is wasted to achieve internal synchronisation” (Richardson, Lissack - 2001). Moreover, open systems in a complex business environment, are now linked globally with other systems. This lack of organisational structure can have bad effects on people. In organisations, agents need identity and they also need to know their organisation to believe in. In fact, the article tends to demonstrate that structure is often necessary for a ‘coherent organisation’.
Moreover, an important textual criticism has been done concerning the emergent structural forms without hierarchy. Indeed, Cilliers (2001) explains that it must be underscored that systems cannot do without hierarchies. According to him, “complex systems are not homogeneous things. They have structure, and moreover, this structure is asymmetrical”. He argues that there are subsections with functions, and for them to exist at all, there has to be some form of hierarchy. The problem here will be to know the importance of the hierarchy and its ‘strength’. Adler (1999) argues that in more dynamic and more complex systems, “we need organisational designs that do more to empower everyone”. Reducing the hierarchical structure may be necessary in some cases, but most managers recognise at the same time that “large-scale, complex organisations need some hierarchical structures, some formalised procedures, and some staff expertise. These are essential tools to avoid chaos and to ensure that employees are not continually reinventing the wheel” (Adler -1999). Moreover, in his study called “Rules and complex systems”, Cilliers (2000), explains that rules are not “wrong or useless. They work as a mechanism for organisation in a complex system. They generate descriptions of what such systems do and perhaps how they are supposed to do it”.
To explain, this paradox between the need of freedom and the necessity to keep a sort of bureaucracy, Hales (2002) gives a new name to this post bureaucracy: ‘the bureaucracy-lite’. According to him, there has been a tendency to ignore the well-documented variations in the dimensions of bureaucracy which means that organizational ‘re-structuring’ often entails changes within the basic bureaucratic model rather than paradigmatic shifts to radically new organizational forms. Furthermore, Harris (1998) argues that writings on post-bureaucratic forms have tended to adopt an 'apocalyptic view'. “The result is not ‘post-bureaucratic’, ‘network’ organisations, but attenuated and more efficient versions of bureaucracy — ‘bureaucracy-lite’; where hierarchy and rules are retained” (Hales - 2002).
All these papers try to show that complex systems keep a certain structure. Even if the network organisation is a model that describes a system without structure, it is also argued that organisations need certain limits to be efficient. This whole line of argument assumes that the open systems are an ideal for which all organisations and their members should aim at. We must consider the possibilities that the network organisation is not beneficial for everyone and/or that it is not an inevitable development of organisational form (Symon - 2000).
SUMMARY OF PAST FINDINGS
The papers concerning the study of emergent structural forms of organisations through the complexity theory are very vast; it has been important to make a choice and focus on the basis concerning structures of complex systems Moreover, the studies explore different theories, which are often contradicted. However, it is possible to draw some preliminary conclusions.
First, it is supported that network organisations are becoming the model of the emergent structure. The increase of new technologies and this constant need to be more flexible and adaptive lead organisation to a new structural form (developed by Symon - 2000. Networked organisation). This new structure is principally characterised as boundaryless and post bureaucratic.
In other words, these organisations become global and are in constant relation with their environment. Organisations can create relations with their customers, suppliers; be aware of their competitors’ strategies; create alliances, joint venture; and be present globally by Strategic Business Units for example. However, the fact that boundaries are not clearly defined in organisations, the several relations established with partners can create a misunderstanding for people in the organisation (Richardson, Lissac - 2001). People need to know their identity, their organisation in order to be efficient.
Secondly, hierarchy is another fundamental characteristic of the structure. In network organisation, hierarchy does not exist. A horizontal form of structure replaces it, where teams become more efficient. People work together, share and receive ideas, which give new sources of energy and permits creativity (Anderson - 1999). Moreover, there is no authority from the top management, because it is more a collaboration between partners. These several explanations show that freedom becomes the principal characteristic. In this new way of working, innovation, speed and flexibility are the principle assets. Nevertheless, this post bureaucratic organisation has to be contrasted. Indeed, in every organisation, people need a certain form of authority. The role of authority is to ensure that potentially recalcitrant, incompetent or irresponsible employees do the right things (Adler - 1999). Also, rules are needed to avoid a total ‘mess’. In fact, hierarchy has not completely disappeared. It is still in organisations but in a less authoritarian form. Then, it is more a restructuring of the organisation, where collaboration is more obvious.
Finally, research suggests that even if network organisations are more and more cited, and represent the characteristics of a lot of organisations, it might not be representative of every one. Furthermore, some organisations will only have one of the characteristics. Because each organisation is different and because each agent has different needs, the network form is not adaptable to every system
This summary of the past research, concerning organisations through complex theories, gives a certain approach of the emergent organisational structures. Although, further research are required in order to explain precisely how this structure takes form. Further analysis should provide more empirical studies, explaining the development of the new form of structures. Moreover, in future research, complexity theory might be mixed and compared with other sciences in order to be more perfect.
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Development of network organisations - empirical research
Complexity science has proved that theories are able to describe and define organisations as complex adaptive systems. However, it is obvious that these results have a lack of empirical researches. The different papers provide explanations about organisation, but practical analyses have now to be done. Moreover, network organisations have been recent facts. But it is now possible to make some evaluations and conclusions. Does the network organisation correspond really to the actual businesses? Can we assume that all organisations need this form of structure? These questions should be answered by practical case studies. Comparisons between several organisations could provide an explanation of the strength and weaknesses of this structure.
In the same context, we do not know the future of network organisations, and the impact of new technologies upon organisations. The “boundaryless” organisation has evolved particularly thanks to this way of telecommunication. This unstructured structure could be very deteriorating for organisations and even people in organisations. Richardson and Lissack (1999) began to argue that human being need coherence to be efficient. Practical studies and interviews should provide a better understanding. Structure is also made by people. Their point of view is essential. Moreover, research has ever been done concerning the ‘coevolution’ between organisations. According to Eisenhardt and Galunic (2000), coevolving is a matter of synergy between two systems. However, could this collaboration between systems become dependency and have bad effects upon people and organisations? Future research will have to identify all these issues.
Finally, the network structure is an emergent one. However, designed structures exist and have been also explained in many studies. The matrix organisation is one of these (Kuprenas - 2003). Moreover, the ‘reengineering’ is a process used in many organisations (Bourdeau and Robey - 1996). Further research may make comparison between the emergent form and the designed form of structure. Because designed forms are made by managers and well considered, it could be important to know, which of these structure is more reliable. Complex systems have emergent structures but sometimes, managers have no choice and must design the structure, which correspond better to their organisation.
Towards new sciences - humanities and arts
The review of the different papers clearly showed that reflection on complex organisations would have to take into account the humanities. During all this review, complexity theory described the new forms of structure, insisting on their impacts upon organisations. We just said, that further research might be done about the impacts of this structure upon employees. Considering this aspect, the question of ethics has to be asked. Complex system is seen as a living system. But, in this living system, human beings work and develop. The combination of complex theory and Human sciences would provide a clearer and exact understanding of the topic.
Lastly, art science, introduced by Cilliers (2000), could be helpful for a better understanding of complexity. Artists always try to identify and explain complex situations, behaviours or even life histories… their approach should give a new vision and a new way of thinking. As Cilliers (2000) points out, “a good novel may teach us more about human nature than mathematical models of the brain, or the theories of cognitive psychology”. These different approaches do not deal only with future research of structures. Waterman assumed that every components of an organisation are linked. It is important that future research link structure with other parts of the organisation.
CONCLUSION
This paper has reviewed articles that take a complex approach to new organisational structures and proposed several argumentations. It has been explained that complex systems are now totally connected with their environment and coevolve internally and externally. Critics have also proved that, this new complex structure is not perfect and future research could provide a better analysis and understanding. Finally, the organisational future underscores that in the process of moving beyond rigid structures, we will have to manage tensions between the creativity of new forms and the ‘chaos’ of change. An overview of the articles reviewed is presented in appendix to give global approaches of the findings.
(4 398 words)
ANALYSE OF THE PAPERS
Legend: _ T: Aspect of complexity theory
O: Organisational approach (empirical)
REFERENCES
- Adler, Paul S. (1999). “Building better bureaucracy”. Academy of management executive. Vol.13, Issue 4.
- Allen, Peter M. (2001). “A complex systems approach to learning in adaptive networks”. International Journal of Innovation Management. Vol. 5, Issue 2.
- Anderson, Philip (1999). “Complexity theory and organisation science”. Organisation Science: A journal of the Institute of Management Science. 10477039, May/Jun 99. Vol.10, Issue 3.
- Ashmos, Donde P., Duchon, Dennis, Mc Daniel Jr, Reuben R., Huonker, John W. (2002). « What a mess! Participation as a simple managerial rule to ‘complexify’ organisations”. Journal of management studies. 39:2
- Askenas, Ron (1999). “Creating the boundaryless organisation”. Business Horizons. Vol.42. Issue5.
- Askenas, Ron, Ulrich, David, Jick, Todd, Kerr, Steve (2000). “The boundaryless organisation”. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
- Bahrami, Homa (1992). “The emerging flexible organisation: Perspectives from Silicon Valley”. California Management Review. Summer 92. 34.4.
- Black, Janice A, Edwards Sandra (2000). “Emergence of virtual or network organisations: fad or feature”. Journal of organisational change. Vol.13, N°13.
Bosh Sijtsema, Petra ( 2002). “A structure of roles in virtual organisations”. International journal of information technology and decision-making. Vol.1, Issue 3.
- Boudreau, Marie Claude, Robey, D. (1996). "Coping with contradictions in business process reengineering”. Journal of management studies. 9 (4).
- Brown, S.L., Eisenhardt, K.L. (1998). “Competing at the edge: Strategy as structured chaos”. Harvard Boston School Press, MA.
- Burns, T., Stalker G.M. (1968). “The Management of Innovation”. (2nd edition). Tavistock, London.
- Cilliers, Paul (1998). “Complexity and postmodernism. Understanding complex system”. London: Routlege.
- Cilliers, Paul (2000). “What can we learn from a theory of complexity?» Emergence. 15213250. Vol.2, Issue 1.
- Cilliers, Paul (2000). “Rules and complex system”. Emergence. 2 (3).
- Cilliers, Paul (2001). “Boundaries, hierarchies and networks in complex systems”. International Journal of Innovation Management. Vol.5, Issue 2.
- Cohen, Jack, Stewart, Ian (1994). “The collapse of chaos: Discovering simplicity in a complex world”. Viking, New York.
- Cravens, David W., Shipp, Shannon H. (1994). “Reforming the traditional organisation: the mandate for developing networks”. Business Horizons. Vol. 37, Issue 4.
- Daft, Richard, Arie Y. Lewin (1990). “Can organisations studies begin to break out of the normal science straitjacket: An editorial essay”. Organisational Science. 1 (1).
- Davenport, T.H., Prusak, L. (1997). “Working knowledge”. Boston: Harvard business school press.
- Davidow, W., & Malone, T. (1992). “The virtual corporation”. New York: Harper Business Press.
- Eisenhardt, Katthleen M., Galunic, Charles D. (2000). “Coevolving”. Harvard Business Review. Vol.78. Issue 1.
- Fuller, Ted Fuller, Moran Paul (2001). “ Small enterprises as complex adaptive systems: a methodological question”. Entrepreneurship and Regional development. Vol.13, Issue 1.
- Hales, Colin (2002). “ ‘Bureaucracy-lite’ and continuities in managerial work”. British Journal of Management. Vol. 13, Issue 1.
- Johnson, Gerry, Scholes, Kevan (2002). “Exploring corporate strategy”. 6th edition. Prentice Hall. Financial Times.
- Khalil, E.L., Boulding, K.E (1996). “Evolution, order and complexity”. London: Routledge.
Klenk, Jürgen, Binnig, Jerg, Schmit, Günter (2000). “Handling complexity with self-organising with fractal semantic network”. Emergence. 2, 4.
- Kochugovindan, Sreekala, Vriend, Nicolaas J. (1998). “Is the study of complex adaptive systems going to solve the mystery of Adam Smith’s ‘Invisible hand’?” Independent review. Vol.3, Issue 1.
- Kuprenas, John A. (2003). “Implementation and performance of a matrix organisation structure”. Information journal of project management. Vol. 21, Issue 1.
- Lissack and Roos (1999). “The next common sense”. London: Nicholas Brealay.
- Marion, Russ, Bacon, Josh (1999). “Organisational extinction and complex systems”. Emergence. Vol. 1, Issue 4.
- Mile, Raymond E. (1992). “Causes of failure in network organisation”. California management review. Vol.34, Issue 4.
- Podolni, Joel M., Page, Karen L. (1998). “Network form of organisation”. Annual review social. 24
- Rahman, Zillur, ( 2002). “Virtual organisation as stratagem”. Singapore Management Review. Vol. 24, Issue 2.
- Richardson, Kurt A., Lissack, Michael R. (2001). “On the status of boundaries, both natural and organisational: A complex system perspective”. Emergencce, 3(4).
- Rouse, William B. (1999). “Connectivity, creativity and chaos”. Information Knowledge Systems Management. Vol.1, Issue 2.
- Rouse, William B. (2000). “ Managing complexity disease control as a complex adaptive system”. Information Knowledge Systems Management. Vol. 2, Issue 2.
- Schwarz, G.M. (2002). “Organisational hierarchy adaptation and information technology”. Information and Organisation. Vol. 12, Issue 3.
- Sonnentag, Sabine (2000). “Working in the network context - What are we talking about? Comment on Symon” Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology. Vol. 73, Issue 4.
- Sullivan Dan (1997). “Organising in the knowledge age: anticipating the cellular form”. Academy of management executive. Vol.11, Issue 4.
- Symon, Gillian ( 2000). “Information and communication technologies and the network organisation: a critical analysis”. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology. Vol. 73, Issue 4.
- Townsead, Anthony M, Demarie, Samuel M (1998). “Virtual teams: technology and the workplace of the future”. Academy of management executive. Vol.12, Issue 3.
- Thrift, N. (1999). “The place of complexity”. Theory, culture and society. 16 (3).
- Van Der Merwe, A.P. (2002). “Project management and business development: integrating strategy, structure, processes and project”. International Journal of Project Management. Vol.20, Issue 5.
- Waterman Jr, Robert H, Peters Jr, Thomas, Phillips, Julien R. (1980). “Structure is not organisation”. Business Horizons. 23.3.
- Williamson, Olliver (1991). “Comparative economic organisation: the analyse of discrete structural alternative”. Adm. Science Q. 36-269, 96.