Emergence and organisational change

Introduction

I occasionally write about emergence and change within systems, organisations and society - but almost always as an introduction to the subject. In writing an email earlier today I found myself getting deeper and deeper into what was intended as a short sharp summary of ideas (and yes, I realise that the 'deeper and deeper' bit was when it stopped being quite so short and sharp). I've decided to publish this more widely here - even though it's not 'right' yet - because comments from others might help me to clarify and contain the ideas a little better.

I think that ideas around systems and emergence are incredibly powerful when thinking about how to change organisations and society. I work with these ideas on a daily basis - but they aren't easy to capture in simple concise language. As with other subjects what tends to happen is that those who have thought through the ideas and who have connected with others end up inventing jargon or using other language short-cuts. Of course this then excludes those not already connected - and I want to avoid doing this - but this post is not an introduction to ideas about emergence and change. What I'm writing is really directed at people who are already familiar with the concepts and who have already thought about the effects of emergence on human systems (particularly in relation to change). For introductions to these ideas try this previous post (a simple starting point):
What is The System
or an article published in the journal 'Emergence: Complexity and Organisation' here (an article directed most at people normally working with 'complexity' and 'emergence'):
Emergence is not always 'good'
or simply as is particularly appropriate for an article on emergence:
the Wikipedia article on emergence.

---

A summary of some key ideas on emergence and change

If we work in a service/organisation and we want to do things very differently to 'how things are done around here' then we need to know:

1. that the organisation is only one of the systems involved (and this, and parts of it, will be part of other systems, and will have systems within it);
2. that the systems involved will have their own motivations (which will be different from official aims, or the motivations of the managers, staff or other individuals, organisations or departments);
3. that these motivations will be about what benefits the system in question, and that this can even be the exact opposite of what we'd like to see (and may be in opposition to official aims, mission statements, or the ideas of the Chief Executive);
4. that because of being made up of many individual people (including ourselves) it means that the systems can be 'all seeing' and powerful and clever, but that they are slow to take notice and slow to act.
   

The result of all of this is that if we want to establish a new way of working which is 'not how things are done around here' - IF it is in conflict with these system motivations - then we must:

1. try to get the new way of working established under the radar of these systems, starting small and recruiting people to join in (eventually seeking weight of numbers);
2. (therefore) initially avoid actions which would otherwise seem sensible (such as seeking agreement from whole staff or management teams);
3. put very little trust in authority or policy as tools to make the change happen or as protectors of our new system (and not think of any one person or small group of people as being the block to change no matter what their authority);
4. create or connect into other existing systems which fit with the new way of working;
5. always expect that the opposing systems will eventually catch up with the new way of working, and that they will challenge it and that they will do so through any possible means;
6. (therefore) be nimble and imaginative, always changing strategy as and when old strategies are successfully countered.

---

NB: A less informed or less careful reader might interpret the above to imply that change is created by breaking rules, by ignoring authority, or that I'm implying that authority is what holds change back. That's absolutely not what I'm meaning (ignoring authority and breaking rules seems like a pretty good way to show up on the system radar after all!).

Please feel free to help me to clarify these ideas or to put them into clearer language (without adding any jargon).