01.23.10

emergence and design – giving permission

Posted in complexity/systems, culture, emergence, leadership, learning, mission at 5:30 am by len

There are two types of structures in human organizations, and each type needs leadership. Reflections will follow at the end.

Fritjof Capra writes,

“In human organizations, both [emergent and designed] types of structures are always present. The designed structures are the organizations formal structures, which are depicted in its official documents and describe the organizations mission, its formal policies, its strategies, and so on.

“In addition, there are always emergent structures. There are the organizations informal structures” the alliances and friendships, the informal channels of communication (the grapevine), the tacit skills and sources of knowledge that are continually evolving. These structures emerge from an informal network of relationships that continually grows, changes, and adapts to new situations.

“The two types of structures”designed and emergent structures” are very different, and every organization needs both kinds. Whereas designed structures cannot grow, emergent structures adapt, develop, and evolve. They are expressions of the organizations collective creativity. If we think of the relationship between emergence and design in terms of a continuum, we can say that a system drifting too far toward design will become overly rigid, unable to adapt to changing conditions.

“On the other hand, if an organization drifts too far toward emergence it will lose the ability to efficiently produce goods or services. The designed structures enable the organization to operate according to certain specifications. They allow the formulation of the rules and regulations that are necessary for the day-to-day management of the organization. So, the challenge for any organization is to find a creative balance between its designed structures and its emergent structures.”

“It seems that two different kinds of leadership correspond to these two types of structures. The organization’s mission is generally the result of a design process. The traditional idea of a leader is that of a person who is able to clearly formulate the mission, to sustain it, and to communicate it will and with charisma.

“The other type of leadership is the facilitation of emergence. This type of leadership is not limited to a single individual. In self-organizing [adaptive] systems, leadership is distributed.. leadership then consists in continually facilitating new structures [and capacities]..

“How does one facilitate emergence..

* by creating a learning culture
* by continually questioning and rewarding innovation
* building up and nurturing a network of learning conversations
* creating an environment of support, trust and respect
* by allowing experimentation and the freedom to make mistakes

From Capra, Creativity and Leadership in learning Communities

* * *
This summary says a great deal about the challenge we face as faith communities in a time of cultural shift. But I’m particularly interested in the TWO types of leadership noted. Because if this assessment is correct.. and I think it is.. we will continue to need two types of leadership.

What fascinates me about this is that there are already examples of living communities that are recognizing this need. Ok, I know. It’s not rocket science. The Order of Mission has two leader types fixed at its center: a Bishop, whose primary concern is the inward life of the Order; and an Apostle, whose primary concern is its missional and outward life. Placing and formalizing both types of leader at the center gives permission for both activities, creates and supports and guards this ethos.. this rhythm of inward and outward movement, sodality and modality.

Brilliant!

Permalink