16 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Leaves so many more questions than it answers, November 7, 2003
I was very excited about this book upon reading the first half of it, but I'm afraid I was far less excited about how it ended.
I've read Stuart Kauffmann and the like before, and had my own ponderings about how you would translate this into a framework which makes sense in the context of human interactions, rather than molecular ones. Several natural scientists claim that their theories could be equally relevant for human complexity. It's a daunting task to try to find out just how - and one which is all about finding good ways to resolve paradoxes, just like the authors state.
The introduction to the breadth of existing theoretical frameworks is pretty impressive. They take us though philosophy, natural science, and management-related theories through the ages. I expect this is one thing that makes the book hard to review. Very few people know enough about all of these areas to be able to truly understand whether these arguments are sound.
I'm comforted by the fact that two of the authors have long experience in dealing with complexity science - one in economics and the other in physics. This gives them an opportunity to avoid the trap that other social scientists have fallen into when dealing with these issues - namely that they lack the necessary depth of understanding, and sometimes seriously misuse the scientific concepts in their work.
I'm not an expert in quantum physics, so I'm not qualified to judge how they've used that. However, my overall impression is that they are not far off in their arguments, they don't use obscure language to wrap it in, in fact, they offer clear tabular comparisons and have well written chapter conclusions. They are also clear about the fact that they use the scientific theories as an analogy only. At this point in time, there are few opportunities to obtain direct proof, and theorising may be necessary to uncover more such opportunities.
Any attempt at resolution to this topic is bound to be controversial. In the end though, I think the book fails to deliver what it promises: A framework for unification of modern natural scientific theories with the human sciences. All it does is to try to re-establish the postmodernist research agenda, with the associated risk for falling into the "nothing is really real - trap". Purely phenomenological research does not take human biological aspects into account, such as neurophysiology, personality, etc.
I don't think, however, that any one method could do this. I just read "Unity of Science" (Ed. Damasio) - it quotes a researcher that says that asking whether nature or nurture is more important for human development is like asking whether the length or the breadth of a rectangle contributes most to its shape. It goes on to say that the study of "lengths" and "breadths" separately is unlikely to truly answer questions about "shape". If all the authors want to do is to switch from studying "lengths" to "breadths", I'm not sure this will be very successful.
I'm still giving the book four stars for the very breadth of their review, and for establishing exactly how poorly we as yet understand how complexity theory relates to society.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A powerful framework for understanding strategy and organizational change, January 8, 2007
First, this is the first book in a series edited by edited by Stacey, Griffin, and Patricia Shaw from the Complexity and Management Centre, University of Hertfordshire
* Complexity and Management - Fad or Radical Challenge to Systems Thinking (2000) - Stacey, Griffin, Shaw
* Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations - Learning and Knowledge Creation (2001) - Stacey
* Changing Conversations in Organizations: A Complexity Approach to Change (2002) - Shaw
* The Emergence of Leadership (2002) - Griffin
* Complexity and Innovation in Organizations (2002) - Fonseca
* The Paradox of Control in Organizations (2001) -- Streatfield
The series intention is to develop thinking about organizations as Complex Processes of relating vs. as systems. In doing this, the authors clearly expose the failure of mainstream management thinking to explain strategic and organizational phenomena. In place of systemic (mainstream) thinking, are insights gained from complexity science that have been developed into the complex responsive process perspective. This perspective does descriptively address strategic and organizational phenomena and serves as a basis for prescriptive actions.
Second, this is not a book to be "read", it is a book to be "studied." It addresses the basis for management thought and action in regard to strategy and organizational change. The book is descriptive, not prescriptive. The most fundamental question it seeks to answer is "how does an organization become what it is?"
In answering this question, natural and social science bases for mainstream management thinking are identified and their implications examined. The conclusion is that mainstream management thinking, based on the systems perspective, cannot explain the creation of novelty, whereas the complex responsive process thinking identified as the alternative to systems thinking does explain novelty.
Given the premise that "there is nothing more important than the way managers think about the nature of their organization, particularly about how it comes to be what it is" - the book provides a comprehensive and insightful framework from which management can actually put into perspective and assess the management tools and techniques they use or are considering using.
Organization leaders seeking to develop sustainable competitive advantage will greatly benefit from the deep insights into what creates the novelty required for ongoing innovation and why mainstream thinking does not have an answer to novelty. The natural and social science bases for both the systemic and complex responsive process perspectives are comprehensively explained.
The content, issues addressed, the perspectives developed are worthy of more than a five star rating. Given the newness and challenging nature of the content, the repetition, or repetitive summaries, throughout the book were welcome. The reason for rating it four stars is due to the need to study it so intently in order to gain the understanding of what the authors have to tell us. More and better frameworks could have been provided for the information delivered. Given my intense interest in the subject, I developed several of my own frameworks to organize the content in order to gain greater benefit from the information provided.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
