Strategic Leadership: A View from Quantum and Chaos Theories

McDaniel, Reuben R.

doi:10.1097/00004010-199701000-00003

Cited by 49 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Frontline staff members are in a position to recognize the nature of systems and observe the needs of patients. Therefore, when they are authorized to participate in decision making, they can effectively help their unit meet its needs (McDaniel, 1997). For instance, incorporating nurses' opinions in the adoption of new technologies such as computerized physician order entry and infusion pumps has been shown to effectively prevent medication errors (Ball, Weaver, & Abbott, 2003).…”

Section: Practice Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Contextual and Structural Factors on Patient Safety in Nursing Units

Hung¹,

Hsu

Lee

et al. 2013

Journal of Nursing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Practice Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Contextual and Structural Factors on Patient Safety in Nursing Units

Hung¹,

Hsu

Lee

et al. 2013

Journal of Nursing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When there is feedback within a system, adaptation is possible. Such a system, called a complex adaptive system (CAS), has three defining characteristics: self-organization, co-evolution and emergence (Kauffman, 1995;Beinhocker, 1997;McDaniel, 1997;Ashmos et al, 2000;Peirce, 2000;Johnson, 2001;McDaniel and Driebe, 2001). A CAS, such as a flock of geese, develops its own internal organizational structure, that is, it selforganizes.…”

Section: Types Of Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This applies to most of the manufacturing activities and some service occupations. However, increasingly in modern activities, outcomes are variable; the interactions are emergent (Johnson, 2001), chaotic but not random (McDaniel, 1997) and subject to repeated adjustment. System components must deal with ambiguity and uncertainty.…”

Section: Healthcare: a Paradigm Of A Thinking Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Systems thinking embodies an approach to understanding how things work first described by Ludwig von Bertalanffy (Bertalanffy, 1975;Davidson, 1983). Numerous strategists have modified and expanded the concepts over the (Forrester, 1971;Lazlo, 1972;Kauffman, 1980Kauffman, , 1995Senge, 1990;Aronson, 1996-8;Beinhocker, 1997;McDaniel, 1997McDaniel, , 2001Ackoff, 1999;Ashmos, 2000;Sterman, 2002). The central thesis is that the effects or outputs of any system are dependent on the interactions of its parts and that studying the parts in isolation will not provide an accurate picture of the system.…”

Section: What Is Systems Thinking?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Thinking systems need systems thinking

Waldman

2007

Syst. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After describing machine and complex adaptive systems (CASs), we define thinking system as a CAS with two additional, unique characteristics: (1) having goal(s) separate from survival, and (2) having the capability to structure its own learning and to innovate purposefully. Thinking systems always learn. Healthcare can be considered a paradigm of the thinking system and is repeatedly plagued with unintended, adverse outcomes, particularly fixes that fail. Systems thinking can dissolve such dysfunction in healthcare and by extension in any thinking system. Specific recommendations follow from this rationale. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…This question is the focus of our paper. A timely answer is important since some recent work has argued for integrating elements of these perspectives (e.g., Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997;Teece, Pisano and Shuen, 1997) while others (e.g., Stacey, 1995;Lengnick-Hall and Wolff, 1998;McDaniel, 1997) have emphasized key differences. Integrative proposals are attractive and highlight common themes across resource-based, hypercompetition, and ecosystem/chaos theories.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Similarities and contradictions in the core logic of three strategy research streams

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The logical foundations shaping three prominent streams of strategic management thought are summarized and then compared and contrasted. The intent is to determine whether these research streams are restatements of a single core logic using different terms to describe the same phenomena and relationships, or whether they provide alternate, and potentially competing, explanations for effective strategic action. Analysis reveals some concordant assertions, some similarities across pairs of frameworks, and some fundamental contradictions among the various logic sets. Since key elements in the fundamental premises of each research stream present logical contradictions with each of the other two, a strategy derived from an integration of these perspectives creates inconsistencies in a firm’s enacted context, its assumptions about strategy making, and its administrative arrangements. As circumstances change, a firm may be required to undergo a ‘core logic shift’ to maintain consistency between its strategy and its strategic context. When a shift becomes necessary, a firm needs to overcome structural inertia, competitive inertia, organizational momentum, and its current management logic to maintain internal consistency. Additional implications of the comparison of these three logics for both theory and practice are discussed. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Strategic Leadership: A View from Quantum and Chaos Theories

Cited by 49 publications

References 17 publications

The Effects of Contextual and Structural Factors on Patient Safety in Nursing Units

The Effects of Contextual and Structural Factors on Patient Safety in Nursing Units

Thinking systems need systems thinking

Similarities and contradictions in the core logic of three strategy research streams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About