CT is used prescriptively in leadership and management literature. The question raised is whether, and in what senses, CT can, or should, constitute application and prescription for practice rather than be used only as explanation. One sees that members of the human race commit murder, and one can explain this perhaps, but this is no reason to prescribe or commend it.
The question is raised of why school leaders and managers should use derivatives of CT to prescribe behaviour Fitzgerald and van Eijnatten, There are also practical problems for school leadership and management in utilizing the view of CT adopted here. For example, how to identify which of the many complex systems of relation- ships in schools are functional and which might be dysfunctional for innovation and development?
How much will networks of interrelationships promote or inhibit development? Some relationships and networks promote change; others tie down agents and inhibit change. The greater the intercon- nection, the more robust and resilient the system will be Juarrero, The existence of networks does not, sui generis, make them a good thing. Fact and value are often considered to be distinct spheres. Why should school leaders support and tolerate risk-taking when it might bring about failure, in an uncertain future? Descriptive and normative theories are different, yet CT conflates these; it may be disguised ideology—benevolent but nevertheless dressing up values in the neutral terminology of science.
The Problem of Self-organization Self-organization is not without it dangers: MacIntosh and MacLean The question is whether self-organization can or should be mandated. One can also question how successful autocatalysis may be with stagnant members of an organi- zation. Self-organization may lead to inefficiency, time-wasting, mob rule, and people going in so many different directions that connectivity and alignment between parts of an organization, its values and direction, are lost. Humans, if left to self-organize rather than to be led, regulated, managed, directed or even con- trolled, may be unreliable, selfish and irrational Smith and Humphries, Schneider and Somers Some literature draws attention to problems of self-organization.
For example, self-organization and emergent order may be unsafe in some situations, and control may be necessary, for example, in the military or prisons Solow and Szmerekesovsky, ; Parellada, Indeed Houchin and MacLean suggest that, in practice, organizations tend to retreat from self-organization, that is, they are not naturally self-organizing. Complexity Theory, School Leadership and Management than the edge of chaos, not least because disequilibrium incurs anxiety Parellada, School Managerial and Leadership Accountability Questions can be raised about the implications of CT for school management and leadership accountability and responsibility, asking, for example: How far does it exonerate school managers and leaders if things go wrong?
Does it lead to short-termism? Does it mix strategy with tactics Stacey, How does CT enable one to evaluate the success or failure of projects, their leadership and management, other than in short-term measures? Is it suf- ficient for school managers and leaders to arrange and influence situations and processes Marion and Uhl-Bien, rather than attend to content and outcomes?
Is not a degree of centralization and bureaucratization both useful and inevitable Solow and Szmerekovsky, ? Indeed, the persistence of bureaucracies, long after Weber, suggests that their permanence is a practical outcome of self-organization. Galbraith questions why CT should be any better, any more efficient, any more effective at improving institutions than its alternative: CT espouses unpredictable, non-linear change Falconer, , why it is important and how it can be promoted.
However, within schools, responsibility exists for what happens now and in the future, and there is accountability for what is planned and what happens. However, unpredictability and non-linearity in CT appear to challenge this. If, as a school leader and manager, I cannot pre- dict the consequences of my actions, other than in the short term only Marion and Uhl-Bien, , in what sense can I be held responsible for what happens other than in terms of immediate consequences?
Is this sufficient or acceptable for school leaders and managers operating in an age of accountability? If one cannot predict an outcome, how far does this exonerate school leaders and of responsibility for what happens or for what turns out to be the situation? Even if I repeat an action, it may not produce the same results; it may produce a hugely different effect or, indeed, no effect. This sits uncomfortably, perhaps, with effi- ciency, control and immediate solutions Levin, that are the stock-in trade of school which school leaders and managers.
Indeed, if the future is uncertain and outcomes are non-linear, then where or why should money and effort be spent on complexity-driven practices, if they are not guaranteed to improve outcomes? Burnes challenges CT to give more added value than other approaches to managing change in organizations. CT needs greater clarity on how it addresses school managerial and leadership responsibility and accountability. The weight of these criticisms is considerable, and suggests that CT may have value more as an approach and as a way of thinking rather than as providing an all-encompassing, universal pre- scription for behaviour in all circumstances.
One can ques- tion the extent to which a theory of survival and pragmatics is satisfactory or sufficient as a theory of school leadership and management Morrison, Further, how does such a view of CT help school leaders and managers to navigate the micro-politics of change, or differentials of power in organizations? While the view of CT adopted here embraces notions of power for exam- ple the power of the fittest to survive , it understates how power is negotiated, circulates through systems, is fluid and is used in a freedom-promoting rather than a freedom-constraining way.
To argue, as the movement towards self-organized criticality would suggest, that CT requires the powering up of schools and people to promote the differentiation niche-finding necessary for survival is one thing.
School Leadership and Complexity Theory
It is another thing to indicate how this can be done from a basis of CT, other than by rather general comments on setting the conditions for freedom, creativity, risk taking, communication, feedback and self-organization, and the intensification thesis Hargreaves, , that is, pressuring teachers to become increasingly creative for survival at the edge of chaos. Put simply, CT may not help school leaders and managers who operate in the day-to-day world of decision-making. How will creativity be sustained as it becomes increasingly brittle Moreno and Ruiz-Mirazo, How to prevent innovation fatigue Moreno and Ruiz-Mirazo, Indeed CT would argue that it is not possible to make such generalizations, as each context is different.
Further, Smith and Humphries ask how a manager can prevent an organization at the edge of chaos from tipping over into chaos.
While CT may be attractive in its advocacy of creativity, on the issue of how that can be managed, and the costs of this, CT is too silent. One can question how acceptable it is for school leadership and management, which are ethical and humanistic activities Fullan , ; Morrison , , to call upon an ethically and humanistically neutral theory from the physical sciences.
It is a no-win situation. School leadership and management are, at heart, deontological, valuative, humanistic and moral enterprises Fullan, , , in which ethics and choices not only abound but are intertwined Cilliers, Hence it is important to clarify the contribution that can be made by a theory, or set of theories, in which humanitarianism and ethics do not feature or in which values seem to be so impermanent and irrelevant: Their contribution and limitations have to be clarified.
CT owes its origins and pedigree in part to evolutionary theory: This is a theory that does not expressly discuss emotions. Complexity Theory, School Leadership and Management and management are emotional activities; people are sentient, they have emotions, and emotional intelligence features strongly in discourses of leadership and management. The view of CT adopted here offers some purchase on school leadership and management, but there are important dimensions of school leadership and management on which it is silent. Conclusion The argument in this article has suggested that CT is widely attended to in leadership and management literature outside education, and its serious consideration for educational leadership and management is recommended.
However, advocacy of CT in educational leadership and man- agement would also benefit from consideration of its difficulties and limitations, and this article has indicated what these might be. This article has taken one view of CT and suggested that it contains some difficulties and areas for resolution. It has argued that one has to be circumspect before either accepting whole—heartedly or indeed being too dismissive of CT, CT can make, and has made, a significant contribution to school management and leadership theory and practice, and it offers a paradigm for enhancing understanding of organizational behaviour in schools and the leadership and management within them.
That said, caution has been advocated in accepting CT too readily. Further, whether theory on its own—of whatever hue—ever has the power to catalyze change is an open question. The arguments has suggested that there is a need for clarification of: It is also important for empirical evidence to be provided of which parts of CT need further investigation, amendment, acceptance, rejection or modification, and what counts as evidence of the explanatory potential of CT.
The article has argued for the need to address other views and versions of CT for understanding school leadership and management, together with methodologies for researching the diverse fields of school management and leadership from a CT perspective. Some difficulty was observed with the definitions and practices of predictability, responsibility and accountability within CT.
Similarly, there is a need for clarification of, and differentiation between, prediction, explanation, description, deontology, prescription and application, and between normative, descriptive and explanatory theories here.
Account Options
This moves CT from being an abstraction to indicating how it can address the real- world problems of how power is negotiated, circulates through schools, is fluid and is used in a freedom-promoting rather than a freedom-constraining way. Although the view of CT adopted has much to offer school leadership and management, it needs to clarify and address several concerns in order to provide school leaders and managers with reli- able ways forward. Given the issues and difficulties raised by and in CT, indicative of a nascent theory, it is perhaps wiser to regard CT less as a theory other than in a very generalized use of the term, and more as a set of challenges, proposals, tenets and alternative, non-linear ways of thinking that offer new directions for school leaders and managers to consider.
More widely, the challenges of CT for lead- ership and management reflect several challenges that CT poses for science more widely. These include, for example: The richness and rapidity of the rise of CT in organizational and leadership science generally has demonstrated its allure and, indeed, its ability to develop organizations. Whether this is the allure of a fertile new paradigm or a siren song is an open question. For example Fullan , , , , Gibson , Hannay et al.
See also the journal Complicity; the web site of complexity and education: For example, Guastello et al. Goldstein and Hazy Stacey ; Parellada Complexity Theory, School Leadership and Management For example, McElroy Cilliers ; McElroy ; Aronson et al. Black ; Capra et al. Which propensities are fulfilled depend on history and contemporary contingencies. Lakatos ; Siegel ; Laudan ; Chu et al. For example, Stacey , , Kelly and Allison , Stacey et al.
It can be argued, of course, that, regardless of the form that human organization takes, for example directed, controlled, led, regulated, it is still a form a self-organization, as it is done by humans on humans. Whilst this challenges an important tenet of CT self-organization , arguing that human self-organization is tautological, the question is perhaps one of emphasis, that is, the difference between external and internal control, and the importance of emergence. It is problematic for a fuller discussion, see Davis and Sumara Academy of Management Journal 47 1: Andriani P, Passiante G Complexity theory and the management of networks.
Imperial College Press, 3— The Journal for Quality and Participation Summer Vienna, Vienna University of Technology: Bailey R Education in the Open Society: Karl Popper and Schooling. Bak P How Nature Works. The New Science of Networks. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 21 3: Battram A Navigating Complexity. Black JA Fermenting change: Journal of Organizational Change Management 13 6: Bourdieu P Outline of a Theory of Practice.
Bourdieu P Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Brodbeck PW Complexity theory and organization procedure design. Business Process Management 8 4: Strategy as Structured Chaos.
School Leadership and Complexity Theory
Harvard Business School Press. Buchanan M Nexus: Small Worlds and the Groundbreaking Theory of Networks. Burnes B Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal of Management Reviews 7 2: Capra F The Web of Life: A New Understanding of Living Systems.
Account Options
Capra F Complexity and life. Perspectives from North and South. Computational Modeling and Organizational Theories. Sociological Methods and Research 25 1: Cilliers P Complexity and Postmodernism. Cilliers P A framework for understanding complex systems. Imperial College Press, 23—7. Cilliers P Why we cannot know complex things completely.
ISCE Publish- ing, 81— Clarke S, Wildy H Context counts: Journal of Educational Administration 42 5: Cohen M Commentary on the organization science special issue on complexity. Organizational Science 10 3: ISCE Publish- ing, — Journal of Educational Administration 44 4: Cunningham R Chaos, complexity and the study of educational communities. Retrieved 8 October Cunningham R Complexity theory and school improvement: International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 18 3: Upper Saddle River, NJ: Diaz CJD Complexity and environmental education.
Julien J Chaos Complexity and the Curriculum. Edmonds B Syntactic Measures of Complexity. Falconer J Emergence happens! Misguided paradigms regarding organizational change and the role of complexity and patterns in the change landscape. Perspectives from the North and South. Journal of Organiza- tional Change Management 15 4: European Journal of Social Theory 6 4: Fuchs C b Structuration theory and self-organization. Systematic Practice and Action Research 16 2: Fullan M Change Forces: Fullan M Leading in a Culture of Change.
Fullan M Principals as leaders in a culture of change. Fullan M Leadership and Sustainability: Systems Thinkers in Action. Galbraith P Organizational leadership and chaos theory: Journal of Educational Administration 42 1: Gibson D Mapping the dynamics of change: Unpublished doctorate dissertation, Graduate College, University of Vermont. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Goffman E Asylums: Goldstein JA Emergence: Complexity and Organization 8 4: Goleman D Leadership that gets results. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences 9 4: Gronn P Distributed properties: Gronn P Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis.
The Leadership Quarterly 13 4: Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences 9 3: Gunter H Introduction—the challenge of distributed leadership. School Leadership and Management 23 3: Guanxi and social net- work theory. Complexity and Organization 6 1: School Leadership and Management 21 3: Teachers Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age.
Harris A Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: British Journal of Management 16 2: Journal of Organizational Change Management 19 4: Juarrero A Complex dynamical systems and the problem of identity. Kelly K Out of Control. Klein JK Interdisciplinarity and complexity: Complexity and Organization, 6 1—2: Cambridge University Press, 91— Lakomski G Leadership: Conclusion The argument in this article has suggested that CT is widely attended to in leadership and management literature outside education, and its serious consideration for educational leadership and management is recommended.
- Account Options;
- ;
- Complexity theory and school improvement: some possible connections?
- School Leadership and Complexity Theory: Keith Morrison: tandjfoods.com: Books.
- Download options.
- Available on.
However, advocacy of CT in educational leadership and man- agement would also benefit from consideration of its difficulties and limitations, and this article has indicated what these might be. This article has taken one view of CT and suggested that it contains some difficulties and areas for resolution. It has argued that one has to be circumspect before either accepting whole—heartedly or indeed being too dismissive of CT, CT can make, and has made, a significant contribution to school management and leadership theory and practice, and it offers a paradigm for enhancing understanding of organizational behaviour in schools and the leadership and management within them.
That said, caution has been advocated in accepting CT too readily. Further, whether theory on its own—of whatever hue—ever has the power to catalyze change is an open question. The arguments has suggested that there is a need for clarification of: It is also important for empirical evidence to be provided of which parts of CT need further investigation, amendment, acceptance, rejection or modification, and what counts as evidence of the explanatory potential of CT. The article has argued for the need to address other views and versions of CT for understanding school leadership and management, together with methodologies for researching the diverse fields of school management and leadership from a CT perspective.
Some difficulty was observed with the definitions and practices of predictability, responsibility and accountability within CT. Similarly, there is a need for clarification of, and differentiation between, prediction, explanation, description, deontology, prescription and application, and between normative, descriptive and explanatory theories here.
This moves CT from being an abstraction to indicating how it can address the real- world problems of how power is negotiated, circulates through schools, is fluid and is used in a freedom-promoting rather than a freedom-constraining way. Although the view of CT adopted has much to offer school leadership and management, it needs to clarify and address several concerns in order to provide school leaders and managers with reli- able ways forward.
Given the issues and difficulties raised by and in CT, indicative of a nascent theory, it is perhaps wiser to regard CT less as a theory other than in a very generalized use of the term, and more as a set of challenges, proposals, tenets and alternative, non-linear ways of thinking that offer new directions for school leaders and managers to consider.
More widely, the challenges of CT for lead- ership and management reflect several challenges that CT poses for science more widely. These include, for example: The richness and rapidity of the rise of CT in organizational and leadership science generally has demonstrated its allure and, indeed, its ability to develop organizations. Whether this is the allure of a fertile new paradigm or a siren song is an open question. For example Fullan , , , , Gibson , Hannay et al.
See also the journal Complicity; the web site of complexity and education: For example, Guastello et al. Goldstein and Hazy Stacey ; Parellada Complexity Theory, School Leadership and Management For example, McElroy Cilliers ; McElroy ; Aronson et al. Black ; Capra et al. Which propensities are fulfilled depend on history and contemporary contingencies. Lakatos ; Siegel ; Laudan ; Chu et al. For example, Stacey , , Kelly and Allison , Stacey et al. It can be argued, of course, that, regardless of the form that human organization takes, for example directed, controlled, led, regulated, it is still a form a self-organization, as it is done by humans on humans.
Whilst this challenges an important tenet of CT self-organization , arguing that human self-organization is tautological, the question is perhaps one of emphasis, that is, the difference between external and internal control, and the importance of emergence. It is problematic for a fuller discussion, see Davis and Sumara Academy of Management Journal 47 1: Andriani P, Passiante G Complexity theory and the management of networks. Imperial College Press, 3— The Journal for Quality and Participation Summer Vienna, Vienna University of Technology: Bailey R Education in the Open Society: Karl Popper and Schooling.
Bak P How Nature Works. The New Science of Networks. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 21 3: Battram A Navigating Complexity. Black JA Fermenting change: Journal of Organizational Change Management 13 6: Bourdieu P Outline of a Theory of Practice. Bourdieu P Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Brodbeck PW Complexity theory and organization procedure design. Business Process Management 8 4: Strategy as Structured Chaos.
Harvard Business School Press. Buchanan M Nexus: Small Worlds and the Groundbreaking Theory of Networks. Burnes B Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal of Management Reviews 7 2: Capra F The Web of Life: A New Understanding of Living Systems. Capra F Complexity and life. Perspectives from North and South. Computational Modeling and Organizational Theories. Sociological Methods and Research 25 1: Cilliers P Complexity and Postmodernism.
Cilliers P A framework for understanding complex systems. Imperial College Press, 23—7. Cilliers P Why we cannot know complex things completely. ISCE Publish- ing, 81— Clarke S, Wildy H Context counts: Journal of Educational Administration 42 5: Cohen M Commentary on the organization science special issue on complexity. Organizational Science 10 3: ISCE Publish- ing, — Journal of Educational Administration 44 4: Cunningham R Chaos, complexity and the study of educational communities.
Retrieved 8 October Cunningham R Complexity theory and school improvement: International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 18 3: Upper Saddle River, NJ: Diaz CJD Complexity and environmental education. Julien J Chaos Complexity and the Curriculum. Edmonds B Syntactic Measures of Complexity. Falconer J Emergence happens! Misguided paradigms regarding organizational change and the role of complexity and patterns in the change landscape.
Perspectives from the North and South. Journal of Organiza- tional Change Management 15 4: European Journal of Social Theory 6 4: Fuchs C b Structuration theory and self-organization. Systematic Practice and Action Research 16 2: Fullan M Change Forces: Fullan M Leading in a Culture of Change. Fullan M Principals as leaders in a culture of change. Fullan M Leadership and Sustainability: Systems Thinkers in Action.
Galbraith P Organizational leadership and chaos theory: Journal of Educational Administration 42 1: Gibson D Mapping the dynamics of change: Unpublished doctorate dissertation, Graduate College, University of Vermont. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Goffman E Asylums: Goldstein JA Emergence: Complexity and Organization 8 4: Goleman D Leadership that gets results. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences 9 4: Gronn P Distributed properties: Gronn P Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly 13 4: Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences 9 3: Gunter H Introduction—the challenge of distributed leadership.
School Leadership and Management 23 3: Guanxi and social net- work theory. Complexity and Organization 6 1: School Leadership and Management 21 3: Teachers Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age. Harris A Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: British Journal of Management 16 2: Journal of Organizational Change Management 19 4: Juarrero A Complex dynamical systems and the problem of identity. Kelly K Out of Control. Klein JK Interdisciplinarity and complexity: Complexity and Organization, 6 1—2: Cambridge University Press, 91— Lakomski G Leadership: PDF accessed 4 April Leban W, Zulauf C Linking emotional intelligence abilities and transformational leadership styles.
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal 25 7: Laudan L Science and Relativism.
School Leadership and Complexity Theory - Keith Morrison - Google Книги
University of Chicago Press. Improving Education through Research. Lewin R Complexity: Life on the Edge. Lichtenstein BMB Emergence as a process of self-organizing: Lissack M Complexity: Strategic Management Journal 20 4: Mackenzie A The practice of complexity.
National College for School Leadership. Marion R The Edge of Organization: Marion R, Bacon J Organizational extinction and complex systems. The Leadership Quarterly 12 4: McElroy MW Integrating complexity theory, knowledge management and organizational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management 4 3: Imperial College Press, 39— Moreno A, Ruiz-Mirazo K Key issues regarding the origin, nature, and evolution of complexity in nature: Morrison KRB Structuration, habitus and complexity theory: British Journal of Sociology of Education 26 3: Morrison KRB Complexity theory and education.
Systems Research and Behavioural Science 20 5: Systems Research and Behavioral Science 20 5: Parellada RJF Modeling of social organizations: Popper K Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Popper K A World of Propensities. Management Science 49 3: Rosete D, Ciarrochi J Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness.
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal 26 5: Ryle G The Concept of Mind. Sawyer RK Social Emergence: Societies as Complex Systems. Schneider M, Somers M Organizations as complex adaptive systems: The Leadership Quarterly 17 4: Siegel H Relativism Refuted. Organization Science 16 2: Academy of Management Journal 49 4: Simms JR Living systems science methodology for managing complexity and change.
Organization Management Journal 1 2: Sorenson OJ Letting the market work for you: Strategic Management Journal 21 5: Stacey RD Managing the Unknowable. Stacey RD The science of complexity: Strategic Management Journal 16 6: The Challenge of Complexity. Learning and Knowledge Creation. Fad or Radical Challenge to Systems Thinking?
Sundarasaradula D, Hasan H. Strategic Change 14 7: Beyond the Learning Curve. Tetenbaum T Shifting paradigms: Organizational Dynamics 26 4: Ulanowicz RE Ecology, a dialog between the quick and the dead. Journal of Organizational Change Management 15 4: Waldrop MM Complexity: Wheatley M Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World second edition.
Willis R A complexity and Darwinian approach to management with failure avoidance as the key tool. Imperial College Press, 74— Remember me on this computer. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Click here to sign up.