The paper "Managing in Complexity" is a great example of a Management Case Study. Complexity has been described by many as a state of mind. In this regard, through this paper, I will seek to explain the nuances of complexity perspective through the narration of a particular situation where I was a key participant. This is a real life issue that will show that the major players had perspectives of their own, which were intruding upon their personal spaces in order to create the scope for complexity. From this point, the participants underwent a certain amount of change in their perspectives which they did not fully understand.
(Streatfield, 2001) Considering the fact that these perspectives were a result of the variety of feelings thrown at them, these new perspectives might be described as composite. (Streatfield, 2001) Since these composite perspectives were made up of the variety of emotions that came from external factors, the participants did not fully understand these new perspectives that came from them. This led to further disillusion, arguments, and complexity in perspectives. (Stacey, 2001) Complexity in Perspectives and its Management There has been a constant flow of research into the field of human resource management owing to the fact that the human element in an organization is the most important factor of production today, especially with its allied concepts like intellectual capital and knowledge management.
(Stacey, 2001) This has led to the process of basing the assumptions along rational lines when carrying out planning within the organization. In this regard, there has been a subtle departure from the traditional frameworks as there is now a greater focus on the creation of scope for better communication that will do away with the various complexities in the operational sphere of the organization.
(Lissack, 2002) Therefore, the current frameworks for dealing with complexity in perspectives and managing the same to contribute effectively to the arena of goal achievement within the organization, there is a more concerted effort towards following linear patterns which are mono directional. (Altmann et al, 1998) In this case, the managers have now accepted the fact that human behavior cannot be pre conditioned, nor can it be predictable. Thus, it has become important to leave room for problematic relationships for further research into case studies, whose outcomes may be applied in case of future conflicts.
(Aram et al, 1999) This has also given rise to the notion that the understanding of targets through the absorption of the HR practices, policies, and strategies within the organization is of vital importance to the organizational health and its performance in general. In this case, casual inferences regarding the transmission of various facts and how the same are received and responded to, form a large part of the knowledge management model followed by the particular organization in setting the tone for the ethical solving of problems relating to the responses that occur due to anxiety or conflict.
(Waldorp, 1992) Thus, there is a stronger focus than ever on the relationships that thrive within the organization and the lines that they follow in their formal and informal communication patterns. This is owing to the fact that the amalgamation of these lines of communication leads to the formulation and effective application of information systems as well as knowledge management models that will promote the management of complexities that arise due to a variety of perspectives.
1. Stacey, R.D. (2001) Complex Responsive Processes in Organisation “Learning and Knowledge Creation” London: Routledge.
2. Stacey R D, Griffin D and Shaw P, (2000) Complexity and Management, London: Routledge.
3. Altmann G. and Koch W A (eds), (1998). Systems: New Paradigms for the Human Sciences. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
4. Waldorp M M (1992). Complexity: the New Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. London: Viking
5. Aram E and Noble D, (1999). Educating Prospective Managers in the Complexity of Organisational Life. Management Learning, 30(3): 321-342
6. Argyris and Schon, (1978) Complexity Theory.
7. Lissack, M R (2002) The Interaction of Complexity and Management. Quorum/Greendwoord.
8. Grunendahl, R T; Peter, H; Will, L (2006) Beyond Compliance: 10 Practical Actions on Regulation, Risk and IT Management. Springer.
9. Lane, H W (2004) The Blackwell Handbook of Global Management: A guide to managing complexity. Blackwell Publishing.
10. Allison, H E; Hobbs, R J (2006) Science and Policy in Natural Resource Management: Understanding system complexity. Cambridge University Press.
11. Elroy, M W (2003) The New Knowledge Management: complexity, learning and sustainable innovation. Elsevier.
12. Gibson, R (1999) Rethinking the Future. Nicolas Blearey Publishing.
13. Shaw, P (May, 2002) Changing the Conversation in Organisations: Change from a complexity perspective. Routledge.