A Dissipative Structure Model of Organization Transformation

Abstract

Modern organizations must transform amidst the internal and external complexity and turbulence they face. Transformation processes are not understandable through the equilibrium models we most often use to describe system dynamics. More applicable system models, recently emerging within the physical sciences, incorporate disorder, uncertainty, and complexity and provide insight into the process of transformation, its characteristics and dynamics. One such model put forth by the Belgian physicist, Ilya Prigogine, is offered here as an explanatory theory of organization transformation. The model postulates that “inherent stabilities” make more probable a system's successful transition through highly unstable conditions. These same stabilities offer a point of convergence of current theories of organizational learning, of self-organizing systems, and of high performance teams. Summary propositions and some directions for future research are discussed.

Systemic Design for Second-Order Effects

“…Moreover, these activities, while still goal-directed, are not pre-planned, but instead require the ability to perceive and direct feedback processes, as is done in iterative design methodologies. MacIntosh and MacLean (1999), however, are extrapolating from earlier work, by Jantsch (1975), as well as by Leifer (1989) and Gemmill and Smith (1985). While they offer the additional three-step summary outlined above, an earlier characterization of the dissipative structuring process given by Gemmill & Smith provides a useful way of thinking about the overall process which helps generalize MacIntosh and MacLean's more operationalized view.…”

“…In The Design Way (Stolterman & Nelson, 2012), the authors identify 'desiderata-driven' change as characteristic of design, but only one of five 'triggers of change'. The other kinds of change -, management-, problem-, vision-and crisis-driven change -are less human-centred and more in line with the systems approaches found within the organizational and management literature (Gemmill & Smith, 1985;Leifer, 1989). Regardless of what drives it, in the 21 st century change and adaptation are unavoidable.…”

Dissipative structures in educational change: Prigogine and the academy

“…Although classical mechanics models serve valuable purposes, many educational and leadership researchers now challenge the limitations of these same types of models applied universally in the social sciences, suggesting that human experience and interaction are oftentimes too complex to be measured predictively with any long-term certainty. They argue that nonlinear models like dissipative structures theory allow us to reinvestigate the successes and failures of a classical framework for leadership theory, discovering new correlations between irreversible systems and human interaction while reconciling the plurality of postmodernism, poststructuralism, deconstructionism, and interpretivism (Gemmill and Smith 1985, Sawada and Caley 1985, Doll 1986, 1987, 1993, Stacey 1992a, 1992b, Blair 1993, Smith and Comer 1994, Wheatley 1994, Fleener 1995, Nadler, Shaw and Walton 1995, Van Olffen and Romme 1995, Jenner 1998, Bass 1998, Macintosh and MacLean 1999, 2001, O'Sullivan 1999, Lichtenstein 2000, Pascale, Millemann and Gioja 2000, Fullan 2001). …”

“…Equally, the organization must be willing to deconstruct old processes while becoming receptive to a change-oriented philosophy that comes with increased communication channels (Gemmill and Smith, 1985). This is perhaps hardest at the point where there is the most turbulence, however.…”

“…In educational leadership, there seems to be a dualism between theory and practice, since we speak of methodological and paradigmatic shifts. However, we continue to focus on deterministic methods that can never replicate human models, since we are unable to control for all of the dependent variables involved in human experience (Gemmill and Smith 1985). As Goeppinger 2002: 77) notes, we 'seem to have fallen prey to our deductive, empirical nature, attempting to break down the parts of a complex thriving whole to the attributions of one or more individuals'.…”