Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1997
A Complex Adaptive Systems Model of
Kevin J. Dooley1,2
The study of complex adaptive systems has yielded great insight into how
complex, organic-like structures can evolve order and purpose over time.
Business organizations, typified by semi-autonomous organizational members
interacting at many levels of cognition and action, can be portrayed by the
generic constructs and driving mechanisms of complex adaptive systems theory.
The purpose of this paper is to forge a unified description of complex adaptive
systems from several sources, and then investigate the issue of change in a
business organization via the framework of complex adaptive systems. The
theory of complex adaptive systems uses components from three paradigms of
management thought: systems theory, population ecology, and information
processing. Specific propositions regarding the nature of dynamical change will
be developed, driven by the complex adaptive systems model. Supporting
evidence for these propositions is then sought within the existing management
theory literature. In doing so, the complex adaptive systems approach to
understanding organization change will be better grounded in domain-specific
theory, and new insights and research areas will come to light.
KEY WORDS: organization development; management; agents; schema; organization learning.
The prevailing paradigm of a given era's management theories has his-
torically mimicked the prevailing paradigm of that era's scientific theories
(Ackoff & Emery, 1972; Hayles, 1991), For example, most of science lead-
1Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
2Correspondence should be directed to Kevin J. Dooley, Department of Mechanical Engi-
neering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455; e-mail: kdooley@maroon.
1090-0578/97/0100-0069$12.50/0 C 1997 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
ing up to this century was heavily influenced by the scientific principles of
Newton, LaPlace, and Descartes (Capra, 1982). This paradigm held as prin-
ciple that, for example, the natural state of a system was equilibrium and
that departures from equilibrium would be damped out. Likewise, the ap-
proach by which a system was understood was reductionist and determi-
nistic: through understanding the component elements of a system and the
manner in which they interact, the future states of the system could (theo-
retically) be predicted (Bohm, 1957).
Management theories in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
also held reductionism, determinism, and equilibrium as core princi-
ples—indeed, all of social science was influenced by this paradigm (Hayles,
1991). Management theorists such as Fayol, Mooney, and Urwick invented
management control mechanisms that are based on the "organization as
machine" metaphor (Morgan, 1986). Organizational direction is embedded
in plans which are then deployed via planning, budgeting, and manage-
ment-by-objectives systems. A centralized, bureaucratic structure is key in
helping organization leaders determine proper actions and deploy instruc-
tions to the workforce. Control is explicit: monetary rewards and punish-
ments are a common form of motivation.
Reductionism gave rise to ideas such as division of labor, the idea of
task, interchangeability of parts, standard procedures, quality control, cost
accounting, time and motion study, and organizational charts (George,
1968). Frederick W. Taylor was responsible for integrating these ideas with
the concepts of the scientific method to design a coherent management
philosophy. His principles of scientific management have great influence
over management practice of today. Taylor brought analytical logic to man-
agement. Taylor's managerial principles (1911) were summarized into four
points: (a) develop a science for each person's work, (b) train and develop
the workperson, (c) heartily cooperate with others, and (d) divide work
and responsibility between labor and management.
laylor believed in a "social system determinism"—that management
of the organization could be predictable if we understood the science of
management (Dooley, Johnson, & Bush, 1995; Spencer, 1994). Taylor and
others focused on describing work by its elemental tasks, and managing
work as such. Under scientific management, work tasks are divided into
basic skills, and training and standardized methods helped eliminate dif-
ferences between peoples' performance. Organizational controls, such as
budget, performance review, audits, standards, etc., are used as negative
feedback mechanisms for maintaining equilibrium (Leifer, 1989; Spencer,
1994; Wheatley, 1992).
As science has progressed in the twentieth century and different para-
digms of scientific thought have emerged, so have different paradigms of man-
agement theory. While current management practice is still deeply rooted in
the mechanistic approach, it has also evolved and matured via concepts from
other paradigms of thought. The purpose of this paper is to explore how one
specific paradigm of modern science—complex adaptive systems—can be used
to understand organizations and the nature of their change. The next section
explores management theory from the perspectives of systems theory, popu-
lation ecology, and information processing. Section three will explore the his-
tory of complex adaptive systems and how management theorists have used it
to date. Section four forges a composite model of complex adaptive systems,
and specific propositions regarding the behavior of complex adaptive systems
are determined. These propositions are also translated into the domain-spe-
cific language of business systems, and supporting literature is cited. The con-
cluding sections summarize the nature of complex adaptive systems change, a
strategy for change, and design principles.
THREE PARADIGMS OF MANAGEMENT THEORY
Systems theory and cybernetics developed as an important field in the
1940s, via the work of, e.g., Ashby (1958), von Bertalanffy (1968), and Wie-
ner (1948). One of the key purposes of systems theory is to describe a
system in such a manner that automated control mechanisms can maintain
the system's behavior at some desired goal. Fluctuations from the outside
(environment) force the system to adjust in order to maintain equilibrium,
and negative feedback mechanisms dampen the effect of these fluctuations.
Likewise, positive feedback mechanisms, which accentuate fluctuations, can
be used to enhance and accelerate the effects of positive fluctuations.
Systems theory caused management theorists to see the organization
as an "organism" (Morgan, 1986). Fluctuations or contingencies from the
environment are adjusted to by organization change (Lawrence & Dyer,
1983). These environments coexist and to a large extent are created by the
organization—the organization does not play a passive observational role
(Weick, 1979). The nature of change can be strategic (e.g., offering new
product lines), tactical (e.g., developing closer relationships with suppliers),
or cultural (e.g., initiating employee motivation programs).
Contingency theory claims that the manner in which the organization
is organized and functions must correspond to the nature of the environ-
ment which it finds itself in (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). In a study of many
different types of firms, Burns and Stalker (1961) found that for organiza-
tions embedded in stable and certain markets (e.g., a textile mill), a mecha-
A CAS Model of Organization Change
nistic organizational form was more appropriate: standardized methods, hi-
erarchical structure, clearly defined lines of authority, communication and
decision making, and clearly bounded roles. For organizations embedded
in unstable and uncertain markets (e.g., an electronics firm), a organic or-
ganizational form was more appropriate: informal and changing lines of
authority, open and informal communication, distributed decision making,
and fluid role definitions.
Other contingency studies have found similar results (e.g.,, McKelvey
& Aldrich, 1983; Miles & Snow, 1978; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), showing
contingency effects along the dimensions of environment, industry, strategy,
structure, technology, employee commitment, key beneficiaries, and em-
pirical configurations (Morgan, 1986). For example, Mintzberg (1979) and
Miller and Friesen (1978) investigated structural contingency via defining
five structural forms along the spectrum of mechanistic to organic (machine
bureaucracy, divisionalized form, professional form, the simple form, and
the adhocracy), and found that the fit between structural form and envi-
ronment was key to organizational performance. A hybrid structural
form—the matrix organization, which distributes personnel both along
functional lines as well as within project-related clusters, has become a
popular way of structuring in lieu of uncertain environments (Mintzberg,
In the organic metaphor, organizations evolve according to contingen-
cies in the environment. Change typically enhances complexity via further
differentiation and specialization (being able to handle a wider variety of
tasks) and/or better integration (being able to handle tasks which are more
complex in a more effective manner; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967).
Rather than viewing the organization as adapting to the environment
in a planned way, "population ecology" believes that organizational attrib-
utes are tested in a Darwinian landscape, where firms with inferior struc-
tures and/or practices die in a resource-constrained competition (Hannan
& Freeman, 1989). Variation in organizational attributes occur in random
and planned fashion, and variations which are beneficial are retained.
Variation is induced by institutionalized experimentation, direct and
indirect incentives, and playfulness; selection is a purposeful managerial
choice of action, based on pre-established goals, values, criteria, check-
points, or competition; useful variations are retained via standardization
and oversight via institutional controls, and internal interpretive schema
change accordingly. The cycle of variation-selection-retention continues on.
This broader view of change allows one to see an organization's change
trajectory in light of larger, systemic issues. For example, several studies
have shown that the organization and its corresponding technology co-
evolve, each affecting one another over time (Rosenkopf & Tushman, 1994;
Van de Yen & Garud, 1994).
The ecological view also generates a hereditary perspective on organ-
izational behavior. Organizational traits can be transmitted vertically for-
ward (e.g., old to young), vertically backward (e.g., young to old), or
horizontally (e.g., young to young) (Baum & Singh, 1994). While the or-
ganizational inheritance process is more complex than its biological coun-
terpart, positive (e.g., McKelvey, 1982) and negative (e.g., Csanyi, 1989;
DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) traits have been observed to linger on in an
organization well beyond any member's stay. Much transmission occurs
within short time frames, because of the ease of iteration and the short
expected lifetime (Cavalli-Sforza & Feldman, 1981).
Population ecologists have often modeled organization change as the
diffusion and adoption of both technical and managerial innovations. The
basic models describing the diffusion process can be characterized by S-
shaped logistics growth curve. These curves describe a rapid initial growth
and a subsequent saturation (or decline) of use. They are based on the
assumption of "substitution," namely, growth in a new technology is linked
to decline of the old, and technologies compete in the environment of a
single, identified need (Cavelli-Sforza & Feldman, 1981). These models are
based on the assumption that information spreads in an infectious manner
via personal contact (Kodama, 1995). Because of pressures toward isomor-
phism, personal contact may lead to imitation of others within and outside
the organization (Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992). In such a model, the like-
lihood of adoption increases as the number of other "users" increases, until
usage is "saturated."
Davies (1979), Stoneman (1983), and Kodama (1995) have proposed
that the dynamics of innovation adoptions can be better described by as-
suming that resistance to adoption is caused by institutional (inter- and
intra-organizational) factors rather than an individual's risk aversion or pro-
pensity to imitate. In this model, adoption of the innovation co-evolves with
the organizational environment needed to nurture the innovation (Van de
Ven & Garud, 1992).
The innovation is adopted by only a few individuals at first, because
it is economically advantageous to only a few individuals at first. The in-
dividual makes a behavioral decision of adoption when some "critical"
value has been surpassed (mathematically, a "probit model" emerges). In
some cases, this critical value may be the ratio between the expected "pay-
off period" and the desired pay-off period; the exogenous variable(s) be-
hind the "critical value" needs to be formulated in each particular case.
A CAS Model of Organization Change
Thus, the co-evolutionary model differs in that rather than modeling adop-
tion as an exponential growth over time, it models growth in terms of con-
sequent change in some exogenous factor(s) in the organizational
environment. Dynamically, it may be best described by the dynamics of
punctuated equilibrium (Tushman & Romanelli, 1985; Anderson & Tush-
Innovation diffusion and adoption can also be viewed via a neo-Dar-
winian evolutionary model, where innovations are treated as memes (cul-
tural genes, e.g., Dawkins, 1976), fitness is determined not only by monetary
influx but also by the extent to which the innovation competes for the con-
sciousness of society's members, and the dynamics of innovation diffusion
are best described by models of organic, self-organizing systems. Various
mathematical models have been developed for the vertical, oblique, and
horizontal transmission of cultural traits (e.g., Cavelli-Sforza & Feldman,
1981). These have been applied to study phenomena such as bias trans-
mission from leaders (e.g., Boyd & Richerson, 1985) and meme-gene co-
evolution (e.g., Lumdsen & Wilson, 1981). In the case of cultural
transmission between "parent" (vertical) and "teacher" (horizontal), the
(single) parent can be represented by a so-ranked organizational superior
(e.g., supervisor), while a teacher can be represented by a colleague (su-
perior, peer, or inferior) who has great influence over other individuals.
The mathematical model shows that "transmission through a social leader
or teacher results in greater homogeneity in a population" (Cavelli-Sforza
& Feldman, 1981, p. 339) than transmission through a parental figure. The
parental figure, however, can have a long-lasting effect: the culture created
by the organization's initial leaders forms a "genetic imprint" for the or-
ganization's ontogeny; it will be clung to until it becomes unworkable or
the group fails and breaks up (Donaldson & Lorsch, 1983; Schein, 1992).
At the same time that systems theory was being developed, science
was developing better understandings of the human brain and its associated
cognitive mechanisms. Simon (1947) and others (e.g., Gailbraith, 1974;
March & Simon, 1957) explored the parallel between human and organ-
izational decision making. Simon's concept of bounded rationality posits
that since individuals are limited in their information-processing capabili-
ties, so too are organizations: organizations act on incomplete information,
explore a limited number of alternatives, and do not necessarily develop
accurate cause and effect maps of reality; heuristics dominate organiza-
tional decision making and thus organizational change.
Gailbrath (1974) considered the manner in which organizations adapt
to complex, uncertain environments by changing their information-process-
ing capabilities, either by reducing the need for information (making tasks
and subgroups more autonomous, or creating slack resources) or by in-
creasing the capacity for information acquisition, storage, and retrieval (via
There are four steps by which the organization acquires knowledge
and learns: knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information in-
terpretation, and organizational memory (Huber, 1991). Through such
learning, organizational members, individually and collectively, perceive the
environment around them and take subsequent action. Learning and
change may often be considered dual. Argyris and Schon (1978) differen-
tiate two types of learning: first (or single-loop) and second (or double-
loop) order. An individual's mind stores patterns which govern
interpretation and action as schema; these schema are limited in their re-
alism in the same way that we understand decision-making to be ration-
ally-bounded (Kielser & Sproull, 1982). First-order learning involves
comparison between a perception and an expectation (via the schema); er-
rors are corrected in a simple, cybernetic way through negative feedback.
Most problem-solving hinges on first-order learning: a problem is perceived
as such because the current, observed organizational state does not match
the expected, desired state. Appropriate corrective action is taken.
Second-order learning involves active manipulation and change of the
interpretive schema. One barrier toward such learning is that high skill in
first-order learning—leading typically to rewarded performance and pro-
motion to managerial ranks—can actually detract from the ability to per-
form second-order learning (Argyris, 1991). The nature of schema change,
etc. will be discussed in much greater detail later.
Schon (1975) also identified deutero-learning as an important
skill—the ability to learn how to learn. At a general level, this could include
learning how to: make schema explicit, seek data to test schema, confront
the actual schema ("theory-in-use") with the publicly stated schema ("es-
poused theory"), and a focus on dilemmas (Schon, 1975). In a more specific
example, organizations have learned how to improve one of their key learn-
ing strategies—total quality management—through the use of structured
comparison to prescribed learning systems, e.g., via Malcolm Baldrige Na-
tional Quality Award; Dooley, Bush, Anderson, & Rungtusanantham, 1990;
Garvin, 1991) and the ISO 9000 criteria (Lamprecht, 1992) and benchmark-
ing other "learning systems" (Camp, 1989).
Three types of organization change models have been discussed: or-
ganic (systems theory), organismic (population ecology), and cognitive (in-
formation processing and organizational learning). Others obviously exist
A CAS Model of Organization Change
(e.g., cultural, political, psychic, dialectic, and domination metaphors; Mor-
gan, 1986). These three, however, supply the key elements of the complex
adaptive systems model of organization change: agents scan the environ-
ment and adapt accordingly (organic), using schema to interpret reality and
context, and trigger decisions and actions (cognitive), while competing and
cooperating with other agents for resources and information (organismic).
COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS
The complexity paradigm uses systemic inquiry to build fuzzy, multi-
valent, multilevel and multidisciplinary representations of reality. Systems
can be understood by looking for patterns within their complexity, patterns
that describe potential evolutions of the system. Descriptions are indeter-
minate and complimentary, and observer-dependent. Systems transition
naturally between equilibrium points through environmental adaptation
and self-organization; control and order are emergent rather than hierar-
chical (Dooley et al., 1995; Lewin, 1992; Waldrop, 1992).
Core epistemological concepts from the mechanistic era were seriously
challenged by Einstein's theory of relativity, and by the discovery of quan-
tum mechanics (Bohm, 1957; Gribbin, 1984). As Kuhn (1970) points out,
while paradigmatic revolutions are discontinuous change, they typically do
not occur at one instant in time. Instead, "change occurs through negotia-
tions at multiple sites among those who generate data, interpret them, theo-
rize about them, and extrapolate beyond them to broader cultural and
philosophical significance" (Hayles, 1991, p. 4). The language of the old
paradigm is likely to be used in the new paradigm, causing further confu-
sion (Hayles, 1991, p. 4; Kuhn, 1970, p. 149). In the Newtonian paradigm,
for example, equilibrium is considered the natural state of the system (Kel-
lert, 1993); in the complexity paradigm, equilibrium is just one of several
states possible—whether equilibrium is natural is situational.
A theory of complex adaptive systems was borne from the discovery
of chaotic dynamics in systems' behaviors. Chaos theory has developed
along two dimensions. Experimentalists (as popularized in Gleick, 1987)
found ways (primarily grounded in topology) to discover deep and complex
patterns in seemingly random or "chaotic" data. Prigogine and Stengers
(1984), among others, use chaos to describe how order can arise from com-
plexity through the process of self-organization. Here is a summary of some
of the main characteristics of systems described by chaos theory (Dooley
et al., 1995): (a) seemingly random behavior may be the result of simple
nonlinear systems (or feedback-coupled linear systems), (b) chaotic behav-
ior can be discovered via various topological mappings, (c) nonlinear sys-
tems can be subject to sensitive dependence to initial conditions—this
sensitivity forces a re-examination of causality—which now must be con-
sidered multilevel and multideterminate (Abraham et al., 1990), (d) systems
that are pushed far-from-equilibrium (at the edge of chaos) can spontane-
ously self-organize into new structures, and (e) changes in the essential
nature of a system take place when a control parameter passes a critical
threshold—a bifurcation point.
While the concepts of chaos and self-organization have evolved from
the physical sciences, the notion of complex adaptive systems (CAS) has
its roots in the biological sciences (Gell-Mann, 1994). Whereas chaos theory
relates to a particular behavior of complex systems, complex adaptive sys-
tems theory allows one to analyze the organizational system from a more
holistic point of view. A CAS is both self-organizing and learning; examples
of CAS include social systems, ecologies, economies, cultures, politics, tech-
nologies, traffic, weather, etc.
The first managerial applications of complexity theory were driven by
Maturana and Varela's work on autopoiesis. In the theory of autopoiesis
(Maturana & Varela, 1992), structural change occurs through self-renewal
(replication, copy, and reproduction). This self-production produces a his-
tory of change: "Ontogeny is the history of structural change in a unity
without loss of organization in that unity. This ongoing structural change
occurs . . . either as a change triggered by interactions coming from the
environment in which it exists or as a result of its internal dynamics . .
. . The overall result is that the ontogenic transformation on a unity only
ceases with its disintegration..." (p. 75). The ontogeny of the autopoietic
system is contained in its internal components and their interactions; the
environment only triggers change; the possible futures are encoded inside
the system at the time of trigger (Maturana & Varela, 1992). This is in
marked departure from previous organic models of organizations, which
modeled the interface between organization and environment as more
Wheatley (1992) recognizes the bridge between the companies focused
on core competencies (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990) and autopoietic organi-
zations. She states that by structuring around skills instead of business units,
new business opportunities can be more rapidly responded to; such organi-
zations exemplify the nature of the autopoietic system to be highly self-re-
flective (but not ego-maniacal).
A CAS Model of Organization Change
A second avenue for studying organizations as complex systems was
via the work of Forrester (1961) in system dynamics. The purpose of system
dynamics was to use simple differential equations—as used in the cyber-
netic control of electromechanical systems—to model large-scale systems,
including economies (Roberts, 1963), social organizations (Simon, 1952),
and culture (Levin, Hirsch, & Roberts, 1972). Complexity, in the form of
"surprising behavior," was found in many of these studies. Most users of
system dynamics models still do not incorporate nonlinear behavior into
their models; as mentioned before, CAS are typified by nonlinear flows of
information and resources. As such, these linear dynamical models typically
fall short of discovering truly complex behavior. There have been a number
of researchers (e.g., Allen & Sanglier, 1981) who have used cellular auto-
mata-type simulations instead of system dynamics, and have discovered the
complex clustering phenomena found in CAS.
Prigogine and Stenger's work on dissipative systems (1984) inspired a
number of management writers to posit how the theory of far-from-equi-
librium systems could be used to describe, and perhaps prescribe, organi-
zation change (Guastello, Dooley, & Goldstein, 1995). Leifer (1989),
among others, recognized that far-from-equilibrium conditions can be gen-
erated by trigger events such as crises (e.g., impending competitive death
of Xerox) or leader-declared revolutions (e.g., GE's Jack Welch) (Tichy &
Ulrich, 1984). Unlike first-order adaptations, these crises overwhelm the
organization's normal capacity for change. At times, the leader may even
invoke artificial crises, such as through creation of a challenging vision, in
order to move the system away from equilibrium (Nonaka, 1988).
Far-from-equilibrium conditions tend to create a dynamic stability
where paradox abounds. The paradoxical nature of CAS—between ran-
domness and order, freedom and control, learning and unlearning, adap-
tation to the environment and construction of the environment—has not
gone unrecognized. Wheatley (1992) and Stacey (1992) advocate purposeful
surfacing of these tensions, in order to generate far-from-equilibrium con-
ditions which will hopefully lead to creative new solutions. Stacey goes so
far as to say that a manager's job is to allow political forces to challenge
one's own source of power and control—the tension between the mecha-
nistic management of the status quo and the organic management of the
learning organization allow the system to thrive. Dooley et al. (1995) have
pointed out the paradoxical nature of total quality management programs,
with the simultaneous focus on control and learning.
Goldstein (1990, 1994) has developed specific techniques for moving
a group "far-from-equilibrium"; once there, the potential for re-organizing
around a new mode of behavior can be realized. Of course, one cannot
control the end result of the self-organization; it can only be influenced by
shared value and purpose (Dooley et al., 1995). Goldstein advocated the
following ways of generating far-from-equilibrium conditions in business or-
ganizations: (a) work with (define, discuss, change) organizational bounda-
ries; (b) connect the system to its environment (customers, suppliers,
competition); (c) difference questioning (seek divergence in group discus-
sion; method based on similar approaches first developed in family systems
therapy (Palazzoli, Boscolo, Cecchin, & Prata, 1980); (d) purpose contrast-
ing (heightening awareness of the state gap; Kiesler & Sproull, 1982); (e)
challenge self-fulfilling prophecies; (f) challenge assumptions creatively
(e.g., Argyris & Schon, 1978); (g) develop nonverbal representations of the
system, such as Morgan's (1986) "imaginization"; and (h) take advantage
of chance (e.g., statistical methods which generate knowledge via outliers).
Eoyang (1993) has developed tools which help accentuate differences
in systems, particularly across organizational boundaries. Group communi-
cation patterns are diagnosed into a 2 x 2 matrix corresponding to the
dimensions of high or low transfer of information, and high or low differ-
entiation; self-diagnosis is employed. Others have employed organizational
"games" to develop (at least) self-reflection, if not far-from-equilibrium
conditions (e.g., Guastello, 1995).
A number of writers have focused on the "chaotic" nature of a change
event. Tushman, Newman, and Romanelli (1986) noted that successful,
large-scale organizational change was typically followed by prolonged pe-
riods of stasis, or incremental change. In CAS terms, this phenomena is
called "punctuated equilibrium" and it has roots in the evolutionary studies
of ecologies (Gould, 1989). Similarly, Gershick (1988) found that work
teams go through similar developmental stages: inertia and revolution in
attitudes and behaviors alternated, often triggered by real and perceived
deadlines. The key theme in punctuated equilibrium is that second- (or in
some cases, third) order change does not need to be invoked by cata-
strophic events. Change occurs when the system has evolved far-from-equi-
librium, which could come from an accumulation of small perturbances or
the cascading, compounding effect of a small disturbance while the system
A CAS Model of Organization Change
is hypersensitive to such disturbances (e.g., operating in a chaotic regime
The unpredictability of CAS systems, especially when they are in cha-
otic regimes of behavior, has been noted by strategic management writers
(Cartwright, 1991; Kiel, 1994; Levy, 1994; Mintzberg, 1994; Stacey, 1992;
Wheatley, 1992; Zimmerman, 1993). Stacey advocated an open-ended plan-
ning process, whereby strategic issues are formulated and then exposed to
divergent thinking and group dialogue.
A number of researchers have explored organizational change in a
more quantitative fashion by applying the statistical modeling techniques
of nonlinear dynamical systems (e.g., fractal dimension, Lyapunov expo-
nent; Peitgen, Jurgens, & Saupe, 1992) to organizational performance data.
The goals of such analyses are to: (a) determine whether apparently ran-
dom data has embedded structure, (b) determine the complexity of the
system (the fractal dimension of the data's attractor corresponds to the
(sub)system's degrees of freedom), (c) potentially develop short-term pre-
dictive models, and (d) explore nonlinear causalities. A number of studies
in different areas have been done: Guastello (1995) has examined a mul-
titude of organizational phenomena, including decision making, stress and
human performance, accidents, creativity, and group development. Pries-
meyer (1992) used phase plane analysis to look at applications in market-
ing, finance, and production. Kiel (1994) looked at nonlinear relationships
(in public management) between work effort and service requests. Gresov,
Haveman, and Oliva (1993) used catastrophe models (Guastello, 1995) to
study the nature of strategic competitive response. Numerous studies have
looked at chaotic dynamics in economics (see Guastello, 1995).
In order to demonstrate the type of analyses being attempted, works
investigating the dynamics of production systems will be detailed here.
Chase, Serrano, and Ramadge (1993) have found possible evidence for
nonlinear, chaotic conditions in a simple, deterministic, switched-flow
model. Huberman and Hogg (1988) have found point, periodic, and chaotic
attractors in scenarios relating to distributed production control systems.
Lin and Solberg (1987) observed chaos in the production rate of an as-
sembly system when a delay is increased.
Beaumariage and Kempf (1994) have done a series of experiments using
a simple, deterministic manufacturing system model. It consists of four ma-
chines and four part types, and some simple part arrival, batching, and sched-
uling rules. They have found eight and ten distinct attractors (looking at
interdeparture times) in two different models. The attractors are periodic,
ranging in periodic length from six to 1278. By changing some simple pa-
rameters, e.g., the release size, they observed changes in both period length
and shape. Small changes in queue content, at certain times, were shown to
Fig. 1. Chaotic behavior in a manufacturing system.
create great changes in output performance, and indeed even shift the system
from one attractor to another. It is not clear whether this sensitivity to initial
conditions is in fact exponential in nature, which would be a prerequisite to
indicate chaos (as opposed to complex periodic behavior).
Deshmukh (1993) observed part interdeparture times from a multima-
chine workcenter under three different sequencing rules, shortest process-
ing time (SPT), longest processing time (LPT), and first in first out (FIFO).
An analysis of return maps, indicates that the FIFO rule induces chaos in
the output process while LPT results in periodicity. Periodicity was found
to be particularly useful in reducing system performance variance.
For general queuing systems, Erramili and Forys (1991) have found
periodic and chaotic attractors in a model of a telephone switching system.
Leland, Taqqu, Willinger, and Wilson (1993) claim to find fractal-like struc-
ture in ethernet traffic.
Dooley (in press) simulated a simple manufacturing system and dis-
covered low dimensional chaos in the throughput times of the simulated
production facility. Chaos appeared more likely in congested systems whose
scheduling schemes do not alter queue rank. The distribution of throughput
times resembles the dual-mode distribution generated via the mushroom
catastrophe dynamics (Guastello, 1995). A return map of the data, shown
in Fig. 1, shows the strange attractor indicative of chaotic behavior.
The area of organizational innovation has also been one studied in
some detail, in terms of change dynamics. The process of innovation has
been characterized as "being inherently uncertain, dynamic, and a ... ran-
dom process" (Cheng & Van de Ven, 1994; cf. Jelinek & Schoonhoven,
1990). Individual, chance events play a large role in the discovery process.
A CAS Model of Organization Change
History is littered with inventions brought about by a researcher's "mistake"
(e.g., post-it notes). Yet there is evidence that some degree of order may
exist, implicit to the observed randomness, suggesting that such systems are
operating at the edge of chaos (i.e., they have chaotic dynamics of low-di-
Cheng and Van de Ven (1994) and Koput (1992) have found numerical
evidence for chaos at the beginning of the innovation process. Leonard-
Barton (1988) found evidence for a "nonlinear process involving complex
recursive cycles of adaptation" (Jayanthi & Sinha 1994) in a series of case
studies. The studies of Tyre and Orlikowski (1994) suggest that random
events in the innovation process trigger adaptive cycles. Jayanthi and Sinha
(1994) have also found numerical evidence of chaos in the activities bridg-
ing innovation and production.
CAS AND ORGANIZATION CHANGE: THEORETICAL
An important analysis of chaos and organization theory was recently
performed by Thietart and Forgues (1995). Many of the ideas presented
in this paper can also be found in that paper; the authors developed six
1. Organizations are potentially chaotic.
2. Organizations move from one dynamic state to the other through
a discrete bifurcation process (second-order change).
3. Forecasting is impossible, especially at a global scale and in the long
4. When in a chaotic state, organizations are attracted to an identifi-
able configuration (order out of randomness).
5. When in a chaotic state, similar structure patterns are found at or-
ganizational, unit, group, and individual levels (fractal nature of cha-
6. Similar actions taken by organizations in a chaotic state will never
lead to the same result.
The authors state that the organization may enter a chaotic state when
system variables are highly coupled, system variables follow different peri-
odic patterns, and the system is composed of a large number of counter-
acting forces. One subtle yet important distinction that must be made is
that chaotic behavior is not an attribute of the system per se; rather, chaos
is an attribute of some aspect of the system's behavior (Kellert, 1993). The
state of the system can be described by numerous performance charac-
teristics. The chaotic behavior of one characteristic (e.g., the firm's daily
stock value) is not an indication that other characteristics will behave simi-
larly (e.g., the firm's productivity levels). In fact, chaotic behavior is not
even guaranteed to remain constant across scale (Mandelbrot, 1983); while
daily stock prices may vary chaotically, weekly prices may vary periodically
(Peters, 1991). That said, propositions 2-6 remain true in the more general
case of a CAS. The general state of far-from-equilibrium conditions present
in living systems is enough to engage these propositions.
Before business organization-specific propositions can be developed,
a generic model of CAS must be presented. Such a model does not exist.
A number of people have put forth particular models of complex adaptive
systems: Gell-Mann (1994), Holland (1995), Jantsch (1980), Maturana and
Varela (1992), and Prigogine and Stengers (1984). The essential principles
of CAS has been taken from each of these works and synthesized into a
A CAS behaves/evolves according to two key principles: order is emer-
gent as opposed to predetermined, and the state of the system is irre-
versible and often unpredictable. One way to demonstrate this property of
emergence is to visually study cellular automata (CA) (Prigogine & Steng-
ers, 1984). CA is the computer-simulated embodiment of a complex (al-
though not necessarily adaptive) system; this demonstration will also help
introduce some of the basic behavioral engines in CAS.
Two-dimensional CAs are represented by a grid of cells (in the com-
puter each cell is defined to correspond a particular number of pixels in
size), and the state of each cell, in the simplest case, is binary. In a com-
puter simulation, the state of the cell in the succeeding moment is deter-
mined by the state of the cell in the previous moment, as well as the state
of neighboring cells in the previous moment. On the computer, each binary
state (e.g., on or off) can be represented by a color (e.g., white=on,
black=off), and the state of all cells is updated during each iteration.
Figure 2 shows a CA whereby the middle cell behaves according to
the rule: if three of less of my neighbors are "on," turn "off'; otherwise,
turn "on." In this case, since only three of the neighbors are "on," the
middle cell turns "off." To demonstrate the emergence of order in a com-
plex system, a large grid is generated and filled randomly: 50% of the cells
are "on," and an equal number "off," although in no spatial pattern what-
soever. The grid on the right of Fig. 3 represents this (these figures were
generated using the software program CASim; Karakatsios, 1990). Next,
each cell is allowed to evolve according to a simple behavioral rule, called
vote (Karakatsios, 1990). If three or less of your neighbors (including your-
self) are on, turn off; if six or more are on, turn on. This is simple majority
rule. The twist is near the tie: If four neighbors are on, turn on; but if five
A CAS Model of Organization Change
Fig. 2. Two dimension CA at time T and T+1.
neighbors are on, turn off. The CA is in a torus formation—cells at the
edges are neighbored to their companion cells at the opposite edge. The
figure at the right shows the system after a dozen iterations. Out of the
randomness, the system has equilibrated at a complex yet definable order
(the system has generated fractal boundaries of a sort, which is typical in
CAS (Eoyang & Dooley, 1996).
The other characteristic of CASs is that they are irreversible and un-
predictable (Gell-Mann, 1994). The nature of change is dynamical—that
is, not only does a given entity within the system change over time, but so
do the entities around it, and the external "environment." This leads to a
general, unidirectional evolution. The larger number of degrees of freedom
Fig. 3. Order out of randomness in a complex system.
in the system make it impossible to predict ahead of time what might hap-
pen; the quickest way to predict the future of a complex system is to let
it evolve and see what happens. The "unpredictable" component of CAS
stems from the fact that often a particular operating characteristic is be-
having chaotically. In a chaotic system, prediction is impossible because
small errors in initial specifications grow exponentially and destroy the va-
lidity of the final prediction (Peitgen et al., 1992). Given those two general
principles, a more detailed description of CAS is given.
The basic building blocks of the CAS are agents. An agent in a bio-
logical system is a cell; in an economic system, a seller or buyer; in a cul-
tural system, a meme; in an organizational system, an individual. Different
agents can be defined at different scales. Agents are semi-autonomous units
which seek to maximize some measure of goodness, or fitness, by evolving
over time. Agents scan their environment—which includes both other
agents within the CAS as well as the external environment—and develop
schema representing interpretive and action rules. These schema often de-
pend on building blocks, so that one schema may actually be composed of
several smaller, more basic schema. For example, a schema involving "how
to dress when it is cold out" would necessarily involve a building block
which states "it is uncomfortable to be cold." In an organizational system,
building blocks occur in the form of general attitudes toward other function
areas (e.g., labor vs. management), values, symbols, myths, business assump-
These schema are rational bounded: they are potentially indeterminate
because of incomplete and/or biased information; they are observer de-
pendent because it is often difficult to separate a phenomenon from its
context, thereby identifying contingencies; and they can be contradictory.
Even though observations which negate existing schema will tend to be
discarded, competing schema can evolve concurrently and may not be logi-
cally inclusive of one another. For example, a person can "distrust bankers,"
but still instill trust in an individual who happens to be a banker but also
a close friend. In organizational systems, strategies, goals, and values often
conflict with one another, leading to dialectic struggle (Morgan, 1986). The
source of conflict is not necessarily intended; one might argue that conflicts
and paradoxes are the fodder of organizational creativity.
Schema exist in multitudes and compete for survival. Existing schema
can undergo three types of change: first-order change, where action is taken
in order to adapt the observation to the existing schema; second-order
change, where there is purposeful change in the schema in order to better
fit observations; and third-order change, where a schema survives or dies
because of the Darwinian survival or death of its corresponding CAS. In
organizational systems, numerous researchers have identified the natural
A CAS Model of Organization Change
existence of first- and second-order change (e.g., Argyris & Schon, 1978;
Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Lant & Mezias, 1992; Levitt & March, 1988). Popula-
tion ecologists (e.g., Hannan & Freeman, 1989) have readily identified
third-order change in organizations.
Schema can change through random or purposeful mutation, combi-
nation (genetic cross-over) with other schema, or acquisition of other build-
ing blocks. Organization learning theorists have identified specific strategies
related to "genetic change" (Huber, 1991): congenital learning (cultural
transmission from other members), experiential learning (via planned ex-
perimentation, self appraisal, and learning curves), vicarious learning (e.g.,
benchmarking other organizations' process, systems, and results), and graft-
ing (e.g., acquisitions and mergers, strategic alliances and partnering, and
migration of top management).
Schema change generally has the effect of making the agent more ro-
bust (it can perform in light of increasing variation and variety), more re-
liable (it can perform more predictably), or grow in requisite variety (in
can adapt to a wider range of conditions; Arthur, 1994). At the metalevel
of the organization, "excellent" organizations often exclusively choose one
of three strategic pathways: customer intimacy—providing holistic and
value-added sets of services and products (robustness); operational excel-
lence—providing volume and certainty in quality, while reducing internal
costs (reliability); or product innovation—inventing new products to fill new
market niches (requisite variety; Treacy & Wiersema, 1995).
Schema survival and/or change is not always beneficial to the agent.
Schema may adapt to a local optimum (Kauffman, 1995) and become
deeply ingrained and difficult to alter, thus representing a maladaptation
over the long run (Gell-Mann, 1994). The "QWERTY' keyboard is an oft-
quoted example of such maladaptation (Arthur, 1994).
Schema define how a given agent interacts with other agents surround-
ing it. As agents aggregate into meta-agents, schema can follow, so that
whole subunits of the CAS can be differentiated by common schema within,
but differentiated schema outside of the subunit. In general, there is con-
sensus within an aggregate about mission, strategy, goals, means, measure-
ment, and correction. In order to create such an environment of consensus,
leaders create common language and conceptual categories, define group
boundaries and criteria for inclusion and exclusion, distribute power and
status, develop norms for intimacy and friendship, define and allocate re-
wards and punishments, and explain the unexplainable. Shared schema de-
fine the culture of the organization, and incorporate assumptions about the
nature of truth and reality, the nature of time, the nature of space, the
nature of human nature, the nature of human activity, and the nature of
human relationships (Schein, 1992).
As organizational members become more cohesive and integrated over
time, there is a tendency for first-order learning to predominate over sec-
ond-order learning (Virany, Tushman, & Romanelli, 1992). Habit, institu-
tionalization, and history drive out deep problem solving. Experimentation
by organizational aggregates tends to decrease over time. Studies on "ex-
ecutive succession" have found that second-order learning can be facilitated
by such change-over (Virany et al., 1992).
The fitness of the agent is a complex aggregate of many factors, both
local and global. The general health or fitness of the agent determines what
the probability of change will be. In humans, self-discrepancy theory (Wig-
gins, 1987) predicts that if an individual's current state does not match their
ideal state, the discrepancy represents that one of the absence of positive
outcomes, and the person is likely to be vulnerable to dejection-related
emotions, disappointment and dissatisfaction. If, on the other hand, the
discrepancy lies between the perceived self-state and one's perception of
what some other individual's (friend, superior, spouse) expectations are,
agitation-related emotions are likely, leading to fear and feeling threatened.
Dejection is likely to lead to second-order change; agitation is likely to
lead to defensive maneuvers and first-order adaptation.
Optimization of local fitness allows differentiation and novelty/diver-
sity; global optimization enhances the CAS coherence as a system and in-
duces long-term memory. The interplay between the two is dynamical, and
in terms of outcomes, often unpredictable. The fitness of a particular
schema is attributed to the fitness of the agent, so that unfit agents will
tend to undergo second-order change in schema.
In general, the probability of second-order schema change, as given
by the probabilities of mutation, cross-over, and acquisition, are a nonlinear
function of the fitness value (shown in Fig. 4). Below a certain threshold
level, change is unlikely and fluctuations are dampened. Above the thresh-
old value, change is imminent and fluctuations are magnified; neuronal be-
havior follows this pattern (deBono, 1969). In human systems, studies of
managers making decisions determined that simple thresholds are typically
used to differentiate action from inaction (aspiration theory; Cyert &
March, 1963; Kiesler & Sproull, 1982).
In Prigogine and Stenger's theory of self-organization (1984), fitness
corresponds to an equilibrium condition: far-from-equilibrium conditions
correspond to low fitness. It is at these far-from-equilibrium conditions that
complex systems can spontaneously evolve new and more complex struc-
tures of order. The system does so through self-organization, which is trig-
gered by random fluctuations which cascade exponentially through the
system. Two prototypical examples have been often used from Prigogine
and Stengers' work (1984). The Benard instability is represented by a dou-
A CAS Model of Organization Change
Fig. 4. Change in probability as a function of fitness.
ble cylinder jar. Heating causes a differential temperature gap, and a ther-
mal gradient rises vertically across horizontal layers. Prior to a threshold
value, stability is maintained while heat only flows via conduction. Past the
threshold, convection forces arise from molecular coherence (i.e., via an
increase interconnectedness) and ordered large-scale (hexagonal) structures
emerge. In the aggregation of cellular slime mold, spores multiply through
unicellular reproduction and grow until food (e.g., bacteria) becomes
scarce. Reproduction is paused and after a time cells begin to emit chemical
signals. The spores follow these signals and self-organize into an aggregate
capable of migration. When developmental thresholds are met, the aggre-
gate differentiates into a stem and fruiting body and spores are put forth.
The nature of agents, schema, and schema change have been identi-
fied. Finally, one must understand how agents interact with each other in-
side (and outside) the boundaries of the CAS. The driver behind these
interactions, as demonstrated by the cellular automata model, are schema
which define interpretive and action rules. Actions involve the exchange of
information and/or resources. These flows may be nonlinear; for example,
it may take two units of resource A to produce one unit of resource B,
but it may take six units of resource A to produce an additional unit of
B. Information and resources can undergo multiplier effects—their impact
can increase in a nonlinear fashion and cascade throughout the sys-
tem—based on the nature of interconnectedness in the system.
Tags help identify what other agents are capable of transaction; tags
also facilitate the formation of aggregates, or meta-agents. Meta-agents
help distribute and decentralize functionality, allowing diversity to thrive
and specialization to occur. In organizational systems, distributed and de-
centralized control enhances reaction speed and robustness, diversity en-
sures robustness and creativity, and specialization enhances requisite variety
(Kelly, 1994). For example, hierarchy (e.g., managers) and function (e.g.,
sales) are common organizational tags. Cultural (e.g., gender, educational
background, race, age) and role (e.g., leader, negotiator, organizer) differ-
ences also may act as organizational tags.
Agents or meta-agents also exist outside the boundaries of the CAS,
and schema also determine the rules of interaction concerning how infor-
mation and resource flow occurs. In an organizational system, such external
meta-agents would include customers, competitors, suppliers, regulators,
government, and the surrounding community.
Table 1 gives a specific list of behaviors that define CAS which are sub-
sequently developed into specific propositions about the nature of change
and adaptation in business organizations. From these, Table 1 shows the
propositions in terms of business organizations, and an illustrative citation.
The Nature of Change
The only true statement that could be made about the nature of
change in a CAS is that there is not necessarily a consistent pattern of
change. Change may occur rapidly or slowly; it may accumulate linearly or
nonlinearly; it may be constant or have bursts of punctuated equilibrium;
it may be resisted or encouraged; it may take little or many resources; it
may have a profound or no effect on system outcomes. In general though,
we see organizations get better at what they already do (first-order change),
change what they do (second-order change), and persist or die (third order
change). Changes will tend to send the system's performance characteristics
into trajectories which are stable, periodic, chaotic, or random.
Strategy for Change
Teleology posits that organizational members develop toward an end
goal or state (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Knowledge of the current state
is partially determined by organizational identity, a powerful and deeply
ingrained schema (Fiol & Huff, 1992; Reger, Gustatson, Demarie, & Mul-
lane, 1994) that individuals in the organization possess; they use such
schema to interpret action (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). The strength of
these schema are dependent upon such things as work history, tenure with
current firm, and level of satisfaction with previous and current jobs. An
organization's actual state is essentially hidden in its complexity as a whole
from any single person's view, exceeding human perceptual, intellectual,
A CAS Model of Organization Change
Table 1. CAS and Organizational Change
1. Organizational order is emergent.
2. Organizational states are irreversible.
3. The future states of the organization
are relatively unpredictable.
Schema and agents
4. Organizational members scan the envi-
ronment and develop schema.
5. Organizational schema are often built
from existing building blocks.
6. Organizational schema can be
indeterminate, observer dependent,
7. Organizational schema undergo first-,
second-, and third-order change.
8. Organizational schema change via muta-
tion, combination, and acquisition.
9. When organizational schema change,
requisite variety, robustness, and/or
reliability is enhanced.
10. Organizational schema define rules of
interaction with other agents.
11. An organizational member's satisfaction
is a complex aggregate of local and
12. An organizational member will attribute
their satisfaction to the appropriateness
of the underlying behavioral schema.
13. An organizational member's satisfaction
is partially determined by gaps, teleologi-
cal, and dialectic in nature.
14. Probability of change in organizational
schema is a nonlinear function of satis-
15. Organizational members' interactions in-
duce flows of information and resources.
16. Multiplier effects and sensitivity to per-
turbations depend on interconnected-
ness within the organizational system.
17. Tags facilitate the formation of organiza-
18, The formation of organizational sub-
units increases performance due to de-
centralization, diversification, and
Population ecology theories of organization
change (Hannan & Freeman, 1977)
Life cycle theories of organization change
(Van de Ven & Poole, 1995)
Open-ended strategic planning (Mintzberg,
Information-processing theories of
organization change (Simon, 1947)
Cognitive chunking (Kielser & Sproull, 1992)
Bounded rationality (March & Simon, 1957)
Single and double loop learning (Argyris &
Schon, 1978); population ecology theories
of organization change (Hannan &
Organization learning (Huber, 1991)
Strategic change (Treacy & Wiersema, 1995)
Organizational culture (Schein, 1992)
Organizational identify (Fiol & Huff, 1992)
Self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987)
Systems theory and dialectic motors/theories
of organization change (Morgan, 1986;
Van de Ven & Poole, 1995)
Aspiration-level theory (Kiesler & Sproull,
Machine models of organization change
Population ecology theories of organization
change (Hannan & Freeman, 1989)
Organizational symbols (Schein, 1992)
Population ecology theories of organization
change (Hannan & Freeman, 1989)
and analytical capacities. The perceived organizational state is an amalgam
of images, stories, thoughts, beliefs, and feelings.
The desired state is driven by and feedbacks to a "shared vision." The
difference between the perceived organization state and the desired organ-
izational state creates a "state gap." The state gap motivates or demotivates
an individual's readiness for change. Miles and Snow (1978) demonstrate
that an executive's perceptions of their organization's environments link
causally to their decision making (Burke & Litwin, 1992). Saraph, Benson,
and Schroeder (1989) demonstrate how organizational quality context is
mapped into organizational response (as modified from Kiesler & Sproull,
1982) via a "gap" between desired and perceived states. If the gap is too
big, change may be deemed impossible; if the gap is too small, change may
be viewed as being unnecessary.
A change strategy then naturally follows: The first step must focus on
developing a shared vision. This strategy has become an increasing focal
point among many change strategists (e.g., Goldstein, 1994; Mintzberg,
1994; Schein, 1992; Stacey, 1992). Management needs to implement means
by which vision can emerge from the group, and management's vision can
gain acceptance among organizational members (Gioia & Chittipeddi,
1991). Other actions which help increase the state gap include co-location
of cross-functional teams, team building, and various socialization strategies
by top management (e.g., open door policy). Such sharing will also heighten
the awareness of co-dependency among organizational members.
The second part of the change strategy is to alter the individual's per-
spective on the current organizational state. This amounts to increasing the
amount and type of feedback available from the environment (e.g., cus-
tomer surveys, using customers on design teams, etc.), improving individu-
als' communication and listening skills, improving the use of advanced
information technologies which enhance transfer of learning (e.g., elec-
tronic mail, laboratory notebooks, virtual conferencing, etc.), and removal
of (bureaucratic) decision-making hierarchies. Goldstein (1994) advocated
the use of "difference questioning" to bring the system far-from-equilibrium
and thus to a potential bifurcation. By highlighting differences rather than
consensus one begins to surface the mental models being used by individu-
als (Argyris & Schon, 1978) and begin true dialogue (Senge, 1990).
A different school of thought, dialectic theory, posits that change is
initiated when opposing events, forces, and values interact with one an-
other. It is through the resolution of "thesis" and "antithesis" that change
occurs. Dialectic theory, emanating from Marx's theory of social change,
follows three principles: (a) the mutual interprenetration of opposites, (b)
the negation of the negation, and (c) the transformation of quantity into
A CAS Model of Organization Change
quality (Morgan, 1986). The dialectic mode of organization analysis can be
found, e.g., in the work of Heydebrand (1977).
Take as an example the implementation of TQM. TQM is steeped in
a paradigm of control (Dooley et al., 1995). Concepts like reduction of vari-
ation, defined and standardized processes, management by fact, causal
thinking, etc. all stem from the "Newtonian" paradigm of control and equi-
librium, as manifested in the principles and practices of scientific manage-
ment. Yet, TQM also has a learning component to it. Employee
involvement, empowerment, and cross-functional cooperation are an im-
portant part of TQM. TQM thus has both mechanistic (control) and or-
ganismic (adaptive learning) components (Anderson, Rungtusanatham, &
Schroeder, 1994; Spencer, 1994). These learning components, in some ways,
are in direct competition with the control components (Sitkin, Sutcliffe, &
For example, many companies attempt to standardize the manufactur-
ing methods they are using across different production facilities. Typically,
a central resource (pilot production facility) experiments to determine the
optimal process methods. These are then standardized and other work
groups are held accountable to following these methods. No sister plant is
allowed to change methods unless it is authorized to do so by the central
authority. This maximizes control, but it minimizes learning potential. In-
stead of having multiple plants all experimenting with different methods
and learning, and sharing accumulated knowledge, there is only one ex-
perimental site. Conversely, decentralization of the process methods will
tend to quicken reaction time and breed novelty in operations; failures will
occur, however, and products from one facility may not be compatible with
products from another because of quality inconsistency. As organizations
struggle through such issues as centralized vs. decentralized control, control
vs. learning, alliances vs. competition, etc., such dialectic conflicts may give
rise to novel organizational solutions.
Design Principles for Complex Adaptive Organizations
A truly complex adaptive organization would appear best suited in
semi-turbulent and turbulent environments where change is imminent and
frequent. The art of designing such systems successfully is that convergent
and divergent forces must be balanced, not in a linear, additive way, but
in an organic fashion (Goldstein, 1994; Kelly, 1994). Here are some general
guidelines: (a) create a shared purpose, (b) cultivate inquiry, learning, ex-
perimentation, and divergent thinking, (c) enhance external and internal
interconnections via communication and technology, (d) instill rapid feed-
back loops for self-reference and self-control, (e) cultivate diversity, spe-
cialization, differentiation, and integration, (f) create shared values and
principles of action, and (g) make explicit a few but essential structural
and behavioral boundaries.
It would appear that one business organization has been developed,
from scratch, using the principles of CAS. Hock (1995) portrays the design
and evolution of VISA USA and VISA International. VISA was developed
using five principles: (a) it must be equitably owned by all participants (the
banks), (b) power and function must be distributive, (c) governance must
be distributive, (d) it must be malleable but durable, and (e) it must em-
brace diversity and change. Its transactions exceed $650 billion annually,
and yet runs with a core staff of 3000 distributed in 13 countries; its present
communication system was developed in 90 days for less than $25,000. This
success story indicates: (a) CAS theory can be used effectively to design a
world-class business, and (b) designing such systems anew may be easier
than changing existing organizational structure and practice.
The author wishes to thank Glenda Eoyang, Jeff Goldstein, Tim
Johnson, Dave Smilonich, Andy Van de Ven, and the anonymous reviewers
for helpful feedback.
Abraham, F., Abraham, R., & Shaw, C. (1990). A visual introduction to dynamical systems
theory for psychology. Santa Cruz, CA: Aerial Press.
Ackoff, R. L. (1988). The second industrial revolution (speech transcript).
Ackoff, R. K., & Emery, F. E. (1972). On purposeful systems. Chicago: Aldine.
Allen, P., & Sanglier, M. (1981). Urban evolution, self-organization, and decision-making. En-
vironment and Planning A, 13, 167-183.
Anderson, J., Rungtusanathara, M., & Schroeder, R. (1994). A theory of quality management
underlying the Deming management method Academy of Management Review, 19, 472-
Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs:
A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 604-633.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading,
Arthur, W. B. (1994). On the evolution of complexity. In G. A. Cowen, D. Pines, & D. Meltzer
(Eds.), Complexity: Metaphors, models, and reality. SFI Studies in the Sciences of Complexity,
Proc. (Vol. XIX, pp. 65-82). New York: Addison-Wesley.
Ashby, W. R. (1958). An introduction to cybernetics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Baum, J., & Singh, J. (1994). Evolutionary dynamics of organizations. New York: Oxford Uni-
Beaumariage, T., & Kempf, K. (November 1994). The Nature and Origin of Chaos in Manu-
facturing. IEEE Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference, Boston.
A CAS Model of Organization Change
Bohm, D. (1957). Causality and chance in modem physics. Philadelphia: University of Penn-
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of
Burke, W., & Litwin, G. (1992). A causal model of organization performance and change.
Journal of Management, 18, 523-545.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
Camp, R. C. (1989). Benchmarking. Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press.
Capra, F. (1982). The turning point. Toronto: Bantam.
Cartwright, T. J. (1991). Planning and chaos theory. Journal of American Planning Association,
Cavalli-Sforza, L., & Feldman, M. (1981). Cultural transmission and evolution: A quantitative
approach. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Press.
Chase, C, Serrano, J., & Ramadge, P. (1993). Periodicity and chaos from switched flow sys-
tems: Contrasting examples of discretely controlled continuous systems. IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, 38, 70-83.
Cheng, Y-T., & Van de Ven, A. (1994). Learning the innovation journey: Order out of chaos?
Technical Report, Strategic Management Center, University of Minnesota.
Csanyi, V (1989). Evolutionary systems and society: A general theory. Durham, NC: Duke Uni-
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Davies, S. (1979). The diffusion of process innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. New York: Oxford Press.
de Bono, E. (1969). The mechanism of mind. New York: Penguin Books.
Deshmukh, A. (1993). Complexity and Chaos in Manufacturing Systems. Doctoral dissertation,
School of Industrial Engineering, Purdue University.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism
and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-
Donaldson, G., & Lorsch, J. (1980). Decision making at the top. New York: Basic Books.
Dooley, K. (in press). Chaotic dynamics and autonomous agents in manufacturing. Chaos Net-
Dooley, K., Bush, D., Anderson, J., & Rungtusanatham, M. (1990). The U.S. Baldrige award
and Japan's Deming prize: Two guidelines for total quality control. Engineering Manage-
ment Journal, 2(3), 9-16.
Dooley, K., Johnson, T., & Bush, D. (1995). TQM, chaos, and complexity. Human Systems
Management, 14, 297-302.
Dutton, J., & Dukerich, J. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in or-
ganizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517-554.
Eoyang, G. (October 1993). Patterns: an algorithm for complex interactions. Paper presented
to the Annual Conference of the Chaos Network, Minneapolis.
Eoyang, G., & Dooley, K. (1996). Boardrooms of the future: The fractal nature of organiza-
tions. In C. Pickover (Ed.), Fractals in the future (pp. 195-203). New York: St. Martin's
Erramilli, A., & Forys, L. (1991). Oscillations and chaos in a flow model of a switching system.
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 9, 171-178.
Fiol, M., & Huff, A. (1992). Maps for managers: where are we? Where do we go from here?
Journal of Management Studies, 29, 267-285.
Fiol, M., & Lyles, M. (1985). Organization learning. Academy of Management Review, 10, 803-
Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.
Gailbraith, J. R. (1974). Organization design: An information processing view. Interfaces, 4,
Garvin, D. A. (1991). How the Baldrige award really works. Harvard Business Review, No-
Gell-Mann, M. (1994). The quark and the jaguar. New York: Freeman & Co.
George, C. (1968). The history of management thought. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Gersick, C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group devel-
opment. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9-41.
Gioia, D., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic management
initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433-448.
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making of a new science. New York: Viking.
Goldstein, J. (1990). A nonequilibrium, nonlinear approach to organizational change. In D.
Andersen, G. Richardson, & J. Sterman (Eds.), System dynamics '90 (pp. 425-439). Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT
Goldstein, J. (1994). The unshackled organization. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
Gould, S. J. (1989). Punctuated equilibria in fact and theory. Journal of Social and Biological
Structures, 12, 117-136.
Gresov, C., Haveman, H., & Oliva, T. (1993). Organization design, inertia, and the dynamics
of competitive response. Organization Science, 4(2), 181-208.
Gribbin, J. (1984). In search of Schroedinger's cat: Quantum physics and reality. New York:
Guastello, S. (1995). Chaos, catastrophe, and human affairs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Guastello, S., Dooley, K., & Goldstein, J. (1995). Chaos, organizational theory, and organ-
izational development. In A. Gilgen & F. Abraham (Eds.), Chaos theory in psychology
(pp. 267-278). Westport, CT Praeger.
Hannan, M. T, & Freeman, F. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
Hayles, N. K. (1991). Introduction: Complex dynamics in science and literature. In N. K.
Hayles (Ed.), Chaos and order Complex dynamics in literature and science (pp. 1-36).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Heyerbrand, W. (1977). Organizational contradictions in public bureaucracies: Toward a Marx-
ian theory of organizations. Sociological Quarterly, 18, 83-107.
Hock, D. W. (1995). The chaordic organization. World Business Academy Perspectives, 9(1),
Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures.
Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115.
Huberman, B., & Hogg, T. (1988). The behavior of computational ecologies. In B. Huberman
(Ed.), The ecology of computation (pp. 77-115). Amsterdam: North Holland Publishers.
Jantsch, E. (1980). The self-organizing universe. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Jayanthi, S., & Sinha, K. K. (June 1994). A Chaotic Process of Innovation: The Case of High
Technology Manufacturing. TECMAN Conference, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pitts-
Jelinek, M., & Schoonhoven, C. (1990). The innovation marathon. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The challenge of organizational change: How
companies experience it and leaders guide it. New York: Free Press.
Karakatsios, K. Z. (1990). Casim's user's guide. Nicosia, CA: Algorithmic Arts.
Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe. Oxford: Oxford Press.
Kellert, S. (1993). In the wake of chaos. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kelly, K. (1994). Out of control The rise of the neo-biological society. Reading, MA: Addison-
Kiel, L. D. (1994). Managing chaos and complexity in government. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1982). Management response to changing environments: Perspective
on problem solving from social cognition. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(4), 548-570.
Kodama, F. (1995). Emerging patterns of innovation: Sources of Japan's technological edge. Bos-
ton: Harvard Business School Press.
Koput, K. W. (1992). Dynamics of Innovative Idea Generation in Organizations. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
A CAS Model of Organization Change
Lamprecht, J. L. (1992). ISO 9000. Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press.
Lant, T., & Mezias, S. (1992). An organization learning model of convergence and reorien-
tation. Organization Science, 3, 47-71.
Lawrence, P., & Dwyer, D. (1983). Renewing American industry. New York: Free Press.
Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and environment. Cambridge: Harvard Uni-
Leifer, R. (1989). Understanding organizational transformation using a dissipative structure
model. Human Relations, 42(10), 899-916.
Leland, W., Taqqu, M., Willinger, W., & Wilson, D. (1993). On the self-similar nature of eth-
ernet traffic. Sigcom, 93, 183-193.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1988). Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organi-
zation. Research Policy, 17, 251-267.
Levin, G., Hirsch, G., & Roberts, E. (1972). Narcotics and the community: A system simu-
lation. American Journal of Public Health, 62(6), 861-873.
Levitt, B., & March, J. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319-
Levy, D. (1994). Chaos theory and strategy: Theory, application, and managerial implications.
Strategic Management Journal, 15, 167-178.
Lewin, R. (1992). Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. New York: MacMillan.
Lin, G. Y., & Solberg, J. J. (1992). Integrated shop floor control using autonomous agents.
IIE Transactions, 24, 57-71.
Lumdsen, C., & Wilson, E. (1981). Genes, mind, and culture. Cambridge: Harvard University
Mandelbrot, B. (1983). The fractal geometry of nature. New York: WH. Freeman.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1992). The tree of knowledge. Boston: Shambhala.
McKelvey, B. (1982). Organizational systematics: Taxonomy, classification, evolution. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
McKelvey, B., & Aldrich, H. (1983). Populations, natural selection, and applied organization
science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 101-128.
Miles, R., & Snow, C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York:
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1978). Archetypes of strategy formulation. Management Science,
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: Free Press.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Nonaka, I. (1988). Creating organizational order out of chaos: Self-renewal in Japanese firms.
California Management Review, 57-73.
Palazzoli, M. S., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1980). Hypothesizing-circularity-neu-
trality. Family Process, 19(1), 73-85.
Peitgen, H.-O., Jurgens, H., & Saupe, D. (1992). Chaos and fractals: New frontiers of science.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Peters, E. E. (1991). Chaos and order in the capital markets. New York: Wiley.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource depend-
ence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the organization. Harvard
Business Review, May-June, 79-91.
Priesmeyer, H. R. (1992). Organizations and chaos. Westport, CT Quorum Books.
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos. New York: Bantam Books.
Reger, R., Gustafson, L., Demarie, S., & Mullane, J. (1994). Refraining the organization:
Why implementing total quality is easier said than done. Academy of Management Review,
Roberts, E. (1963). The design of management control systems. Management Technology, 3(2),
Rosenkopf, L., & Tushman, M. (1994). The coevolution of technology and organization. In Download full-text
J. Baum and J. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations (pp. 403-424). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Saraph, J., Benson, P., & Schroeder, R. (1989). An instrument for measuring the critical factors
of quality management. Decision Sciences, 20, 810-829.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schon, D. (1975). Deutero-learning in organizations: Learning for increased effectiveness. Or-
ganizational Dynamics, 4(1), 2-16.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York: MacMillan.
Simon, H. A. (1952). On the application of servomechanism theory in the study of production
control. Econometrica, 20(2), 247-268.
Sitkin, S., Sutcliffe, K., & Schroeder, R. (1994). Distinguishing control from learning in total
quality management: A contigency perspective. Academy of Management Review, 19(3),
Spencer, B. (1994). Models of organizational and total quality management: A comparison
and critical evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 19, 446-471.
Stacey, R. (1992). Managing the unknowable. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stoneman, P. (1983). The economic analysis of technological change. Oxford: Oxford University
Thietart, R. A., & Forgues, B. (1995). Chaos theory and organization. Organization Science,
Taylor, F. (1911). Principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Bros.
Tichy, N., & Ulrich, D. (1984). The leadership challenge—a call for transformational leader.
Sloan Management Review, Fall, 59-63.
Ireacy, M., & Wiersema, F. (1995). The discipline of market leaders. Reading, MA: Addison-
Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphis model of
convergence and reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 171-222.
lushman, M. L., Newman, W., & Romanelli, E. (1986). Convergence and upheaval: Managing
the unsteady pace of organizational evolution. California Management Review, 29(1), 29-
Tyre, M., & Orlikowski, W. (1994). Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological
adaptation. Organization Science, 5, 98-118.
Van de Ven, A., & Garud, R. (1994). The coevolution of technical and institutional events in
the development of an innovation. In J. Baum and J. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics
of organizations (pp. 425-443). New York: Oxford University Press.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organiza-
tions. Academy of Management Review, 20, 510-540.
Virany, B., Tushman, T. L., & Romanelli, E. (1992). Executive succession and organization
outcomes in turbulent environments: An organization learning approach. Organization
Science, 3, 72-92.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory. New York: Braziller.
Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of chaos. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organization. New York: Random House.
Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics. New York: Wiley.
Wiggins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review,
Zimmerman, B. (1993). The inherent drive towards chaos. In P. Lorange, B. Chakravarthy,
J. Roos, and A. Van de Ven (Eds.), Implementing strategic processes: Change, learning,
and cooperation (pp. 373-393). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
A CAS Model of Organization Change