Complexity and Emergence
In Complexity: A Guided Tour, Melanie Mitchell defines a complex system as, “a system in which large networks of components with no central control and simple rules of operation give rise to complex collective behavior, sophisticated information processing, and adaptation via learning or evolution” (13). Put more simply, complexity refers to systems comprised of many “independently” functioning parts from which system-wide behavior patterns become recognizable. We can begin to understand complex systems by looking at the interactions within the system (Glattfelder, 2012). In isolation the individual interactions within a complex system may seem trivial, but as the interactions are viewed in unison as a networked system over time, evolutionary behaviors become apparent that would otherwise have gone unnoticed by examining only the individual interactions within the system. This behavior is referred to as “emergence.” According to Mithcell, a complex system can also be considered “a system that exhibits nontrivial emergent and self-organizing behaviors” (13).
Emergence is one property of complex systems. It is an unpredicted, system-wide behavior that can’t be understood by examining the individual components of the system in seclusion (Glattfelder, 2012). The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Emergent interactions within complex systems are important to study because of their evolutionary implications— ultimately, complexity leads to systemic resilience (Perony, 2013). Because of their resilience, complex systems are able to take unforeseen adverse circumstances and adjust overall behavior accordingly, without being “told to.” By understanding more about the qualities and properties that foster emergent behaviors in complex systems, we can better mimic these types of self-organizing systems in other “industries.” The basis of complexity studies seems to be in the “industry” of science, but complexity can be applied to other systems and networks as well. This is important because “… the more you can zoom out and embrace complexity, the better chance you have of zooming in on the simple details that matter most. (Berlow, 2010).
Play as Emergence
Nobody tells us to play (in modern society it is often quite the opposite – we get told not to play sometimes), play is a behavior that we humans (as well as other animals) have developed to help us deal with the challenges of life. In this way, play represents one form of emergence in complex social systems. It is also interesting to note that everyone plays differently, but as a society, we still recognize play as a behavior exhibited by most (if not all) members of society. It seems fairly straightforward to make this argument, as the parallels are astounding. However, when considering business organizations, the systems seem to be treated anything but complex, and the attitudes far from emergent.
Emergence in Business Organizations
Researchers and theorists, for the most part, seem to examine the workplace through a top-down lens – the bosses make the rules and implement the systems that “underling” workers are expected to follow. Through that lens, the workplace cannot be considered complex, at least not as described above, because, while there are many individuals involved in the system, they are not acting of their own accord— someone else is “in control” of the system
At the intersection of work and play, we can find innovation. “Playfulness enhances the capacity to innovate, adapt and master changing circumstances” (Brown, 2009). Knowing this, it is no wonder than modern business organizations have been making a push towards processes that foster innovation. If innovation is considered such a key aspect to organizational health, why aren’t business organizations better at fostering it? As Stewart and Simmons point out, creativity (one of the main driving factors of innovation) feels very risky because it is, inherently, about exploring the unknown (2010, xvi). In many business models, every unknown introduces a new potential threat or possible opportunity for failure.
What if, instead, we consider the workplace a complex system? What if we were to entertain the idea that it could be the individual workers who, when left to work with some amount of freedom and individuality, develop highly sophisticated and efficient patterns of working. They may not need (micro)managers dictating their every move—they may, in fact, function more productively without the oversight. Glattfelder leaves the audience with this diagnosis: “Reality is so complex, we need to move away from dogma” (2012). So, let us move away from dogma and move into the realm of playfulness.
References
Berlow, Eric. 2010. Simplifying Complexity. http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_berlow_how_complexity_leads_to_simplicity?language=en.
Brown, Stuart. 2009. “Let the Children Play (Some More).” The New York Times – Opinionator. September 2. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/let-the-children-play-some-more/.
Glattfelder, James. 2012. Who Controls the World? http://www.ted.com/talks/james_b_glattfelder_who_controls_the_world?language=en.
Mitchell, Melanie. 2009. Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford.
Morieux, Yves. 2013. As Work Gets More Complex, 6 Rules to Simplify. http://www.ted.com/talks/yves_morieux_as_work_gets_more_complex_6_rules_to_simplify.
Oster, Gary. 2009. “Emergent Innovation: A New Strategic Paradigm.” Journal of Strategic Leadership 2 (1): 40–56.
Perony, Nicolas. 2013. Puppies! Now That I’ve Got Your Attention, Complexity Theory. http://www.ted.com/talks/nicolas_perony_puppies_now_that_i_ve_got_your_attention_complexity_theory?language=en.
Stewart, Dave, and Mark Simmons. 2010. Business Playground: Where Creativity and Commerce Collide, The. 1 edition. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.