Complexity science might appear to have no relation to the organizational studies. Yet, it is at the core of today's network organization. An overview of the evolution of the organization might make this relationship more clear.
There are four forms of organization that underlie the governance and evolution of all societies across the ages (Ronfeldt, 2006):
- The tribal form: Beginning thousands of years ago, its main dynamic is kinship, which gives people a distinct sense of identity and belonging.
- The institutional form: Emphasizing hierarchy, it led to the development of the state and the military. Initial examples are the Roman Empire, the Catholic papacy and other corporate enterprises.
- The market form: It enables people to excel at openly competitive, free, and fair economic exchanges. Although present in ancient times, it did not gain sway until the 19th century, at first mainly in England.
- The network form: It serves to connect dispersed groups and individuals so that they may coordinate and act conjointly. Enabled by the digital information-technology revolution, this form is only now coming into its own, so far strengthening civil society more than other realms.
Each of the four forms embodies a distinctive set of structures, processes, beliefs, and dynamics about how society should be organized — about who gets to achieve what, why, and how. Each involves different codes and standards about how agents should treat each other. Each has both bright and dark sides, both strengths and weaknesses. And each can be gotten “right” or “wrong” in various ways, depending on circumstances.
As the complexity science suggests (although the system appears to be chaotic, over time a deep order is revealed), once a form is subscribed to by many agents, it becomes more than a mere form: It develops into a new realm, even a system, of thought and behavior. Each is a generator of order, because each defines a set of interactions that are attractive, powerful, and useful enough to create a distinct realm of activity (Ronfeldt, 2006). Each becomes the basis for a new governance system that is self-regulating. And each tends to foster a different kind of worldview, for each orients people differently toward social space, time, and action. What is deemed rational — how a “rational agent” should behave — is different for each form; no single “utility function” suits them all (Ronfeldt, 2006).
The main story is that human-beings advance by learning to use and combine all four forms, in a preferred progression. What ultimately matters is how these organziational forms are added and how well they function together. They are not substitutes for each other; they are complements. Historically, a society’s progress depends on its ability to use all four forms and combine them (and their realms) into a coherent, well-balanced, well-functioning whole.
For an organization to progress optimally, no single form should be allowed to dominate any other, and none should be suppressed or eliminated. An organization’s potential to function well at a given stage, and to evolve to a higher level of complexity, depends on its ability to integrate these inherently contradictory forms into a well-functioning whole.
