Search results

Complexity researchers have identified four basic assumptions underlying non‐linear dynamic systems (NDS): the assumption that change is a constant; the assumption that emergent systems are not reducible to their parts; the assumption of mutual dependence; and the assumption that complex systems behave in non‐proportional ways. In this paper I use these new assumptions as a basis for explaining why order emerges in organizations, and for uncovering a three‐stage process model of complex adaptive systems change (CASC). The insights from these NDS models are revealed through examples from two entrepreneurial firms undergoing transformative shifts in their development. These assumptions of NDS and the model of CASC may therefore be useful for understanding order creation and self‐organizing processes in work groups, project ventures, and organizations.

At the heart of the new venture growth that fuels the economic expansion is the question of how organizations make transitions from one stage of their development to the next (Churchill & Lewis, 1983; Covin & Slevin, 1997). To study this phenomenon, a three-stage model of self-organization was formulated and then tested in four growth-based new ventures that were each undergoing a major developmental transition. Although the outcomes of the transitions were all different, the process of the transitions was virtually the same, each time validating the three-stage model. Implications for research and practice of new venture growth are provided.

The article explores issues of what matters most in individual organizational and societal transformation – economic issues or spirit? Transformation is defined and literature on individual, organizational and societal transformation is presented. The article looks at the standard arguments that economics are the driving force in transformation and then postulates that spirituality may be as much – if not more – of a driving force. Evidence is provided on the growth of interest in spirituality. Then three theories of transformation are offered, one at the level of societal transformation. Each of these theories incorporates elements of spirituality in order to understand the prerequisites of transformation.

Focuses on integrating the theory and practice of organizational transformation through the metaphors of chaos theory and self‐organization. Case study data were collected through in‐depth interviews of three practitioner/theorists ‐ Peter Senge, William Torbert and Ellen Wingard ‐ all of whom have formulated theories of organizational change which they use as practitioners for generating transformations in organizations. The interviews suggest that all three of them utilize the logic of their (very different) theories to rationally set up the conditions for organizational change, but that the transformations they describe were sparked not through rational efforts but, in their words, through “grace”, “magic”, and “a miracle”. The new sciences of chaos and self‐organization provide a number of useful metaphors that can help us understand these non‐linear events. Describes the case studies in some depth and then identifies commonalities across the interventions in terms of a three‐phase model of dynamic order, thresholds at the edge of logic, and the self‐organized emergence of new order. Uses metaphors from new science to explain this process, aiming to identify a “chaotic logic” that links rational theory and intuitive practice in transformations of groups and organizations.

Most academic work on sustainability has been focused on the organizational level, reflecting the popular “business case for sustainability” idea. However, organizations are certainly not the only locus of entrepreneurial action for sustainability, nor are they the most ideal. This chapter reports on a six-year study of the Sustainability Consortium, a collaboration started in 1999 between large companies that were seeking to lead their industry through innovative initiatives for sustainability. The findings, based on 60 interviews and many other sources of data, identify eight “ecologies of entrepreneurial action,” all of which were critical for driving change. These ecologies are: Individual Aspiration; Network Affiliation; Process Optimization; Entrepreneurial Innovation; Value Chain Collaboration; Industry/Sector Coordination; System-Wide Integration; and Social Transformation. As shown by complexity theory, the interdependent and interconnected nature of these ecologies means that only by expanding beyond organizationally focused endeavors can we help generate the social transformation that will lead to a sustainable world.

Corporations are now collaborating to meet complex global sustainability challenges, which, until recently, were considered beyond the mandate of business leaders. Multi-organizational consortia have formed, not as philanthropic efforts, but to find competitive advantage. To examine the dynamics of an early collaboration of this sort, with a view to suggesting how future inter-organizational projects might be fostered, we pursued an in-depth multi-method case study of “The Sustainability Consortium.” The Consortium has convened Fortune 50 senior managers since 1998. Our analysis uncovers the primacy of “Relational Space” – a rich context for aspirational trust and reflective learning across organizational boundaries, which is enabled by, and in turn gives rise to, collaborative projects. Within this space, an ecology of organizational leaders committed to sustainability can accomplish together what would be impossible in their individual organizations. We explain the viability of this collaboration.

Heritability studies attempt to estimate the contribution of genes (vs. environments) to variation in phenotypes (or outcomes of interest) in a given population at a given time. This chapter scrutinizes heritability studies of adverse health phenotypes, emphasizing flaws that have become more glaring in light of recent advances in the life sciences and manifest most visibly in epigenetics.

Drawing on a diverse body of research and critical scholarship, this chapter examines the veracity of methodological and conceptual assumptions of heritability studies.

The chapter argues that heritability studies are futile for two reasons: (1) heritability studies suffer from serious methodological flaws with the overall effect of making estimates inaccurate and likely biased toward inflated heritability, and, more importantly (2) the conceptual (biological) model on which heritability studies depend – that of identifiably separate effects of genes versus the environment on phenotype variance – is unsound. As discussed, contemporary bioscientific work indicates that genes and environments are enmeshed in a complex (bidirectional, interactional), dynamic relationship that defies any attempt to demarcate separate contributions to phenotype variance. Thus, heritability studies attempt the biologically impossible. The emerging research on the importance of microbiota is also discussed, including how the commensal relationship between microbial and human cells further stymies heritability studies.

Understandably, few sociologists have the time or interest to be informed about the methodological and theoretical underpinnings of heritability studies or to keep pace with the incredible advances in genetics and epigenetics over the last several years. The present chapter aims to provide interested scholars with information about heritability and heritability estimates of adverse health outcomes in light of recent advances in the biosciences.