There are five core theories that provide a solid foundation for the work that OD practitioners
do. Good grounding in theory is essential for every OD practitioner. The better you
understand the theory, the better you will understand the complex and intricate nature of the
OD process and OD tool kit.
Based on the research of individuals such as Stacey, Wheatley, Black and Morgan complexity
theory provides a lens at which both academics and practitioners can analyse and understand
the operation of an organisation, and as such, the methods by which an intervention should be
structured to deliver the change the organisation is looking for.
Complexity Theory is probably better know in Mathematics, the natural sciences and the
development of Algorithms in computer science, however, in the field of OD is concerned with
the emergence of order and structure in complex and the apparently chaotic organisational
systems.
The Theorist (Stacey 2003, Wheatley 1992, Black 2000 and Morgan 1997) challenged the
traditional view that organisations had a ‘business as usual’ change model to a non-linear
system which was surrounded by dynamic forms of change. The unpredictability of change
meant that organisational leadership cannot manage change, but instead support their
organisation on its change journey, releasing individuals to adapt as the organisation moves
towards the ‘edge of chaos’ providing the environment for self-management and the avoidance
of liminalities.
In complexity theory the future is unknowable and as such the ability to learn is absolutely
critical to ongoing organisation effectiveness, navigating the paradox of the desire for stability
with that of the need to flex, adapt and change. Too much stability will stagnant the
organisation and prevent proactive adaptive change, too little and the organisation becomes
impossible to manage.
Complexity theory therefore promotes the idea of organisations aas complex adaptive systems
which need to respond to the external and internal environment by remaining on the edge of
chaos whilst at the same time self-organising and continuously re-inventing the organisational.
Key Points
1. Change can’t be managed in a complex system
2. Change must be supported
3. Leaders must encourage people to learn how to adapt and flex
4. Open Connection between the different parts of the organisation is essential for self-
organisation and embracing diversity of thinking, ideas and approaches
5. Feedback loops and Information flow is essential to prevent the organisation from
falling into chaos.
1. Provide the organisation with the tools to operate in instable conditions
2. Develop Feedback loops in order for the organisation to adapt and create the
environment for change
3. Help individuals navigate the political interaction and build communities of practice to
progress self-organisation
4. Promote diversity of thinking and agility by examining and shifting organisational and
personal mental models
5. Shift the design of the organisation, rejecting hierarchy and control in favour of
decentralised, flexible and multifaceted teams
6. Encourage experimentation, and freedom to create, innovate and self-express to help
develop new patterns of operation
7. Focus on Purpose – Why are we here, rather than What we are doing, which provides the
forum for openness to new directions.
8. Organisation should encourage and promote learning, especially around growth in
adaptability, flexibility and change.
9. Use system-wide collaborative inquiry methods to build connections and encourage
diversity of thinking
10. Provide a stimulus to the organisational system to encourage and influence change
Photo by: Mindwalker
The basic premise of complexity theory is that there is a hidden order to the behavior
(and evolution) of complex systems, whether that system is a national economy,
an ecosystem, an organization, or a production line. In business and finance, complexity
theory places its focus on the ways a factory or company resemble an ecosystem or
market, rather than a machine "whose parts and functions have been plucked out in
advance," according to David Berreby. He maintains that the organization of systems is
no accident, but "the results of laws of nature that we don't yet fully understand." Once
understood, managers will learn that if left to function on their own, systems organize
themselves, bringing about "order for free."
Proponents of complexity theory believe specific traits are shared by most complex
systems. These systems are the combination of many independent actors behaving as
a single unit. These actors respond to their environment, much as stock markets
respond to news of changing economies, genes respond to natural selection, or the
human brain responds to sensory input. All of these "networks" also act as a single
system made of many interacting components. Complexity theory attempts to explain
how even millions of independent actors can unintentionally demonstrate patterned
behavior and properties that, while present in the overall system, are not present in any
individual component of that system.
Complexity theory was founded on researchers's attempts to rationalize the behavior
of large and complex systems, believing they cannot be explained by usual rules of
nature. It attempts to discover how the many disparate elements of a system work with
each other to shape the system and its outcomes, as well as how each component
changes over time. It is also one way to express the perceived domination of systems
over their myriad smaller influences.
While complexity theory is strikingly similar to chaos theory, complexity theorists
maintain that chaos, by itself, does not account for the coherence of self-organizing,
complex systems. Rather, complex systems reside at the edge of chaos—the actors or
components of a system are never locked in to a particular position or role within the
system, but they never fall completely out of control. As M. Mitchell Waldrop states
in Complexity, "The edge of chaos is the constantly shifting battle zone between
stagnation and anarchy, the one place where a complex system can be spontaneous,
adaptive, and alive."
Sherry Turkle, author of Life on the Screen and professor of sociology of science at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), feels that technology has helped bring the
issues of complexity theory to life. She asserts that computers helped persuade us that
knowing all the parts of a system (or a computer) cannot give anyone the ability to
foresee all the complexity that can arise as all of those parts interact.
ORIGINS OF COMPLEXITY THEORY
Much of the research on complexity theory originates from the Sante Fe Institute in New
Mexico, a mecca for those studying complexity theory. George A. Cowan, head of
research at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory, founded the Santa Fe Institute in the
mid-1980s. Scientists at the institute claim that through the study of complexity theory,
one can see not only the laws of chaos, but also those of order—through which a
powerful explanation for how any collection of components will organize itself can be
generated.
One of complexity theory's leading proponents is Stuart Kauffman, author of At Home in
the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. Also a
member of the Santa Fe Institute, Kauffman states, "Life exists at the edge of chaos I
suspect that the fate of all complex adapting systems in the biosphere—from single
cells to economies—is to evolve to a natural state between order and chaos, a grand
compromise between structure and surprise." Kauffman's theories originated during his
pre-medicine days, when his studies of genetics began to inspire questions about DNA
and genetic structures. Kauffman felt that there had to be some kind of built-in order,
that trial and error was too much of a long shot to be responsible for the perfect
biomolecular structure of the human genome.
Other researchers with a stronger focus on the business side of complexity theory are
Howard Sherman and Ron Schultz, authors of Open Boundaries and fellows at Santa
Fe Center for Emergent Strategies in collaboration with the Santa Fe Institute. They
believe business today is faster and nonlinear (effects are not proportional to their
causes), and that "experts" cannot predict which products or companies will succeed.
Sherman and Schultz assert that competitive advantage is fleeting, and that change can
rapidly turn assets into dead weight.
Another major contributor to complexity theory is John Holland, a computer scientist and
professor at the University of Michigan. Holland designed the genetic algorithm based
on the idea that components of complex systems can be broken down into building
blocks, whose characteristics can then be represented in code. In simulations, units of
code recombine to make "offspring"; the best of these offspring are allowed to
reproduce, while the worst are discarded. As the algorithm works, better code evolves,
and the results can be translated into real-world applications.
DETAILS OF COMPLEXITY THEORY
A complex system is defined as one in which many independent agents interact with
each other in multiple (sometimes infinite) ways. This variety of actors also allows for
the "spontaneous self-organization" that sometimes takes place in a system. This self-
organization occurs without anyone being in charge or planning the organization.
Rather, it is more a result of organisms/agents constantly adapting to each other. The
complex systems are also adaptive (i.e., they always adapt in a way that benefits them).
As an analogy, Waldrop suggests analogy to the way the human brain adapts to learn
from experience.
Another important concept in complexity theory is that there is no master controller of
any system. Rather, coherent system behavior is generated by the competition and
cooperation between actors that is always present. And the components of a system do
have different levels of organization—like an organization made up of divisions, which
contain different departments, which are in comprised of different workers. But the
important differentiation from this "organization," made by John Holland
in Complexity, is that "complex adaptive systems are constantly revising and
rearranging their building blocks as they gain experience. A firm will promote individuals
who do well and (more rarely) will reshuffle its organizational chart for greater efficiency.
Countries will make new trading agreements or realign themselves into whole new
alliances."
Another important part of complexity theory is its assumption that there are principles
underlying all "emergent properties," or traits that emerge from the interactions of many
different actors. David Berreby uses the analogy of an ant colony that switches to a
better food source. No individual ant made the decision; it was a result of their
interactions.
One of the defining characteristics of complex systems is the inability to predict the
outcome of any given change to the system. Because a system depends on so many
intricate interactions, the number of possible reactions to any given change is infinite.
Minor events can have enormous consequences because of the chain of reactions they
might incite. Conversely, major changes may have an almost insignificant effect on the
system as a whole. Because of this, strong control of any complex system may be
impossible. While it may have order, no one absolutely governs a complex system.
Scientists create computer simulations that enable them to better identify emerging
patterns in a system. They also write modification programs allowing system
components to adapt to changes in the environment without the absolute necessity of
radical changes to the overall structure. Computers can use these simulations to design
production schedules and optimize assembly line performance.
COMPLEXITY THEORY IN BUSINESS
Complexity theory is used in business as a way to encourage innovative thinking and
real-time responses to change by allowing business units to self-organize. Sherman and
Schultz (as related by Hout) argue that modern business moves in a nonlinear fashion,
with no continuity in the flow of competitive events, except when observed from
hindsight. In order to effectively put complexity theory to work, however, organization
leaders need to give up rigid control of these systems from above. Far more can be
learned by stepping back from the day-to-day running of the organization and watching
for emergent properties and organizational patterns. Those conditions or patterns that
bring about the best solutions should be preserved whenever possible. Managers also
need to allow organizations to evolve in response to ongoing messages from
customers. As Hout states:
No intelligence from on high can match the quality of solutions to market
problems that arise from players who are constantly communicating with one
another on the ground level. The invisible hand of the marketplace should
displace the visible hand of the manager. The markets can determine where one
team or initiative or company ends and another begins. Managers interfere at
their peril.
Efforts to downplay management, as related by Hout, claim that "management as we
have known it is too cumbersome for today's fast, unpredictable pace. A new kind of
company wins now. The best management models don't adapt to the new economy;
they emerge from it. It's no longer the survival of the fittest; it's the arrival of the fittest."
Even so, putting the ideas of complexity theory to work does not mean management
need rest on its laurels. Hout asserts that organizations's leaders retain an obligation to
formulate a guiding vision for the company, provide effective leadership, express and
encourage strong values and organizational beliefs, and provide avenues for open
communication. Managers need to manage the way that accident and law interact,
knowing how and where to push to keep the system from neither descending into chaos
nor becoming rigidly ordered.
Letting an organization self-organize does not negate the need for strategy. Rather, it
means that organizational strategy should evolve based on feedback and change as it
occurs. By establishing a corporate strategy first, an organization defines itself through
conditions that were previously in place, and becomes non-adaptive to continuously-
evolving market conditions. Sherman and Schultz recommend the "try something and
see what happens" mentality.
CONTRARY BELIEFS
The idea that allowing complex systems to self-organize will yield the best solutions has
validity, but complexity theory is not a panacea for all organizations. The notions of
complexity theory assume that people in these companies are enthusiastic, intelligent,
and can effectively work in teams—requiring less management than workers in more
traditional, hierarchical, rigidly-controlled environments. Unfortunately, however, these
fast-growing, evolutionary companies with bright, ambitious workers may need more
management rather than less. Companies that are shaped and reshaped on such a
frequent basis—constantly adapting to a changing business environment—lose some of
the stability found at traditional corporate giants such as the industrial and automotive
behemoths.
The modern corporation has a lot at stake. There are difficulties in teamwork and
collaboration, with potential issues such as nonperforming team members, personality
conflicts, opposing business styles, and the effects of stress on job performance.
Organizational leaders need to effectively manage personnel and job performance,
reward and groom talented performers, develop business relationships and networks,
resolve conflict, and divest the company of nonperformers who may be holding the
company back from adapting well to emerging trends and technologies. Other business
leaders see emergent strategy as a problem, rather than a cure. According to Alan Kay,
head of research and development at Disney Imagineering, "Most businesses do not
move so fast that foresight, commitment, preemption, deterrence, and other traditional
elements of strategy have lost their ability to build value. The best way to predict the
future is to invent it."
Complexity theory and the Santa Fe Institute represent common ground where
scientists and theorists from disciplines such as economics, physics, business
management, and computer science can research behavior of complex systems and
their various components. The complexity paradigm also offers a means of applying
modern theories that an organization is more like a living organism than a machine.
Organizations are conceptualized as evolving in response to complex interactions within
and without the system.
Ron Schultz, co-author of Open Boundaries, explains that complexity theory "is about
how our ideas shape our behaviors. If our ideas about the world in which we operate
are machine-like and mechanical, our behaviors will be very different than if our ideas
are based on that of complex adaptive systems, which are more evolutionary and
organic." Rather than following more linear approaches to corporate decision making,
complexity theory offers organizations a way to thrive on the ambiguity and
unpredictability that characterize modern business.
Some of complexity theory's leading experts, such as J. Doyne Farmer and Norman
Packard, make a living advising companies and practically applying the ideas behind
complexity theory to business areas such as corporate investment. Organizations
putting the theory into practice include Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center (PARC),
Applied Biosystems, and the United States Marine Corps. Complexity theory offers
companies the opportunity to create new markets and establish new ways to spread
emerging knowledge throughout the company—enabling the organization, as a whole,
to respond faster and better to ongoing change.
Complexity Theory Complexity is defined as the measure of heterogeneity or diversity in
internal and environmental factors such as departments, customers, suppliers, socio-politics and
technology (Mason, 2007). Complexity theory focuses on how parts at a micro-level in a
complex system affect emergent behavior and overall outcome at the macro-level
(McElroy,2000; McKenzie and James, 2004). It is concerned with the study of emergent order in
what otherwise may be considered as very disorderly systems (Sherif, 2006). As the complexity
of a system increases, the ability to understand and use information to plan and predict becomes
more difficult. Over time, the increasing complexity leads to more change within the system
(Chakravarthy, 1997). As the system becomes more complex, making sense of it becomes more
difficult and adaptation to the changing environment becomes more problematic (Mason, 2007;
Cao and McHugh, 2005). Complexity theory paradigm rejects the mechanical ontological
models, which assume linear causality between events and effects (Styhre, 2002). According to
Rhee (2000), the characteristic structural and behavioral patterns in a complex system are due to
the interactions among the system’s parts. Complex systems tend to be deterministic in nature
and evolve through a phase of instability, which eventually reaches another threshold where a
new relationship is established between its internal and external environments and itself
(Sullivan, 2004; McElroy, 2000). Systems that operate near a threshold of instability tend to
exhibit creativity and produce new and innovative behaviors at the level of the whole system
(Price, 2004; Styhre, 2002). Dynamics of Complex Systems An essential feature of the
complexity theory paradigm is the concept of complex adaptive systems. Systems that absorb
information from their environment and create stores of knowledge that can aid action are called
“complex adaptive systems” (Mason, 2007; Fioretti and Visser, 2004). The concept of complex
adaptive systems tries to explain how learning and innovation happen in living systems, and are
used to describe “nonlinear systems” whose behavior is determined by the interaction of its
adaptive parts (Price, 2004; Meek et al., 2007; Foster, 2005). The parts in complex adaptive
systems are diverse in form and ability (Sherif, 2006). The system derives its complexity from
the diversity of, and the level of interaction between the parts. The complexity of the system
arises from the collective control that the parts exert on the whole. Thus, the higher the number
of parts, the higher the level of interaction between them, and consequently the harder it is to
predict the system’s behavior (Amagoh, 2008). While each part of a complex system acts
according to its own best interest, collectively they cause the system to move in a certain
direction, which may be hard to predict. Since there is no central control unit in a complex
system, it is difficult to determine the attribution of any one part to the performance of the whole
because of the confounding effect of a change in one part on other parts and the whole (Mason,
2007). The parts are constantly seeking to improve performance by driving the system away
from equilibrium ( Sherif, 2006). Over time, the extensive interaction between the parts
determines the behavior of the overall system within its environment. The parts learn from these
interactions and restructure themselves to better adapt to the environment (Styhre, 2002;
Montouri, 2000). Organizational Change with the System and Complexity Theories in Mind 55
Characteristics of Complex Systems Complex systems have a number of common
characteristics. (i) The presence of a large number of interacting elements within the system. The
elements interact with one another, and such interactions are typically associated with the
presence of feedback mechanisms in the system. The interactions in turn produce non-linearities
in the dynamics of the system ( Sherif, 2006; Price, 2004). (ii) Complex systems are dissipative
structures, that is, a semi-stable configuration that does not correspond to external pressures and
manipulations in a linear manner ( Styhre, 2002; White, 2000). Dissipative structures operate in
accordance with non-linear logic (Rhee, 2000; McElroy, 2000). A dissipative structure can, for
instance, absorb a significant external pressure in certain positions, yet can be significantly
altered by only minor influences in other positions (Fioretti and Visser, 2004; Meek et al., 2007).
The organization is pushed further away from equilibrium and the situation moves towards the
crisis stage. This causes some disorder (instability) within the organization. At the crisis stage,
the organization’s structure holds the organization together and dissipates the “fluxes of energy”
coming into it (Mason, 2007). (iii) Complex systems have the ability for self-organization and
adaptation. Parts of the system can self-organize rather than being imposed upon by centralized
control (Sherif, 2006; Price, 2004; Styhre, 2002). Self-organization happens as the various
decentralized parts of the system interact. Adaptation refers to behaviors which allow the system
to survive changes in its environment. It is a response to changes that may reduce the efficiency
of the system’s behavior. Adaptation means the overall responsive behaviors of a system to
changes in its environment (Byeon, 2005). It denotes the ability of a system to modify itself or its
environment in response to environmental disturbances that threaten the system’s efficiency.
Adaptation often occurs when the organization is redirecting its internal processes in order to
become more competitive (Montuori, 2000; Fioretti and Visser, 2004). Usually, adaptive
behavior occurs where there is enough stability to sustain existence and enough turbulence for
creativity to overcome inertia (Mason, 2007; Paraskevas, 2006; Meek et al., 2007). Continuous
self-organization and adaptation allow and encourage a number of creative responses to emerge
from changing environments (Steele, 2003). In complex systems, feedback loops are one of the
major elements that make self-organizing systems effective (Rhee, 2000; McKenzies and James,
2004). (iv) Complex systems tend to exhibit emergent properties. This means that patterns
emerge which are due to the collective behavior of the components of the system. (Ferlie, 2007)
The emergent properties are independently observable and empirically verifiable patterns ( Meek
et al., 2007). Emergence happens after the system’s parameters change, and the system is
heading towards disorder. The ensuing crisis draws the organization in a particular direction
(Pascale et al., 2000), and triggers behavioral changes in the organization. This is the stage where
the organization reaches the threshold of “bifurcation” or a “phase transition” (Paraskevas, 2006;
Sullivan, 2004). At this stage, the system may either break down leading to the demise of the
organization, or break through to one of several new states which will emerge from the self-
organization of the organization’s components (Kaufman, 1993). The organization begins to
display new “emergent” properties whereby its components take on new behaviors that none of
them had before (McElroy, 2000). The experience of the organization from the crisis will
become part of its organizational learning and will influence its behaviors in the future
(Paraskevas, 2006; Ferlie, 2007). Implications of Systems and Complexity Theories for
Organizations Systems and complexity theories are theories of organizational change that have
implications for organizations. Organizations are dynamic systems of adaptation and evolution
that contain multiple parts, which interact with one another and the environment. Samuel
Jesuorobo Osifo and Omorodion Omoregbe 56 The ability of organizations to change rapidly in
response to intra and inter relationships is at the heart of an adaptive organization (Morel and
Ramanujam, 1999). The external environment is generally beyond the control of any
organization and comprises the competition, the economy, social-cultural-demographic factors,
political, legal- governmental aspects, technology, and the natural environment (Beeson and
Davis, 2000). Since organizations are complex systems, an implication is that the organization is
able to learn from its environment and change its internal structure and its functioning over time,
thus changing the behavior of individual elements (Sherif, 2006; Paraskevas 2006). These
changes in environmental factors can lead to turbulence in the organization in response to rapid,
unexpected change in the environmental (Mason, 2007; Styhre, 2002). Growth in environmental
turbulence can be the result of a reduction of orderly competition, an increasing need for
information, innovation, quicker cycles of development, and more difficulty in predicting
customer, product and service requirements (Beeson and Davis, 2000; Rhee, 2000; Montuori,
2000). An understanding of systems and complexity theories provides an enhanced appreciation
of how each of the sub-systems of the organization interconnects and interacts, and the nature of
the interplay between the various components. Such an understanding can help organizational
leaders plan how to better obtain resources such as raw materials and information, transform
resources by making use of the social and technological components, and produce the best
results (Yoon and Kuchinke, 2005). A basic tenet of organization theory is that an organization’s
information processing capacity should be tailored to the information processing requirements of
its environment (Fioretti, and Visset, 2004). This is not the case when an organization views its
environment as complex. Since the complexity theory views organization change as comprising
a complex, integrated, socially embedded and socially dependent process affected by a variety of
causes and concepts (Sullivan, 2004; Paraskevas, 2006), managers aware of complex interactions
are in a better position to understand the dynamics and behavior of an organization, and to guide
strategy development (Mason, 2007). Both systems theory and complexity theory form the basis
of two organization change approaches that can be valuable in explaining the behavior of
organizations in coping with a continuous change (Foster, 2005; Sullivan, 2004; Sherif, 2006).
They provide a conceptual foundation that can help in prioritizing system performance levels and
examining how they proactively and collectively seek to solve and adapt solutions (Styhre, 2002;
Price, 2004). This implies that changes are produced on the basis of several interconnected
causes and effects. An understanding of the complexity and systems paradigms makes
organizational behavior subject to surprises and hard to predict, thereby making the attainment of
organizational effectiveness non-obvious (Fioretti and Visser, 2004). As a result, decision-
makers are more conscious of the limits of their knowledge and abilities. This allows
organizational leaders to engage in a learning process with the complex system they are facing.
Complexity theory has been utilized in studies of organizational transformation, corporate
strategy, organization culture, and organization design, to mention but a few (Styhre, 2002; Yoon
and Kuchinke, 2005:; Mason, 2007; White, 2000). Conclusion The basic premise of complexity
theory is that there is a hidden order to the behavior, environment (and evolution) of complex
systems. By using theories of organizational change, this paper attempts to describe the complex,
dynamic, unpredictable and sometimes chaotic process of organizational transformation.
Organizational change activities can be successfully examined from complexity and systems
theories framework. The organizational change paradigms discussed in the paper suggest that
changes are produced on the basis of a number of interconnected causes and effects whose
relationships are complicated to conceive of from an analytical framework based on linearity.
Systems and complexity models can offer more promising avenues from which organizational
leaders can appreciate and address complex organizational dilemmas. Understanding these
models and the environment of business could assist an organizational leader in creating
organizational change structure with a view to modifying corporate culture to suit that of a
learning organization.
In addition to the five core OD theories there are other theories that a solid OD
practitioner must understand to build on their theoretical foundation for practice. Good
grounding in theory is essential for every OD practitioner. The better you understand the
theory, the better you will understand the complex and intricate nature of the OD process and
OD tool kit.
Psychoanalytical Theory in Brief
Sigmund Freud developed Psychoanalytic Theory of personality that suggests that early
experiences influence all human behaviour. The Theory explores two territories of the human
mind, the conscious and the unconscious.
The conscious mind includes everything that we are aware of, those parts of our our mental
processing that we can think and talk about rationally. Part of this includes our memory, which
is not always part of consciousness but can be retrieved easily at any time and brought into our
awareness.
The unconscious mind is a reservoir of feelings, thoughts, urges, and memories that outside of
our conscious awareness. Most of the contents of the unconscious are unacceptable or
unpleasant, such as feelings of pain, anxiety, or conflict. According to the theory, the
unconscious continues to influence our behaviour and experience, even though we are unaware
of these underlying influences.
Psychoanalytic theory seeks to address three core issues to behaviour – the id, the ego and the
superego.
Psychoanalysts argue that all human personality is comprised of these closely integrated
functions. The id refers to our biological or physical functioning which influences behaviour
that is unfettered, compelling and lacking morality, selfish and intolerant of tension. id
functions on the principle of pleasure before anything else and operates at an unconscious or
instinctive level. Many of us have experienced what is commonly referred to as a Freudian slip.
These misstatements are believed to reveal underlying, unconscious thoughts or feelings.
The ego is the rationally functioning element of human personality. Ego exerts conscious
control, trying always to be the mediator between the id and the superego. Ego seeks pleasure
based on rationality instead of irrationality and therefore results in behaviour that is rational
and always conscious. The ego is the aspect we present to the “outside” world, it is our public
face.
The superego represents our moral system. It strives to put a right or wrong label on our
behaviour and is driven by our own morality.
Key Points
1. Humanity is irrational, materialistic and mechanistic.
2. Our early experience influences our behaviour
3. Anxiety occurs when there is conflict among the three divisions of id, ego and superego.
4. Humans use defence mechanisms to control the anxiety.
5. Development of the concepts of human conscious and unconscious and conscience.
Applying Psychoanalytic Theory in an OD Intervention
1. Observe the impact of id, ego and superego on the interactions between employees and
management,
2. Monitor the conscious and unconscious forces that bind fellow employees together, and
the role of autonomy in people’s lives.
3. During the diagnostic phase, build a model of the dynamics of the workplace.
4. Highlight how work and the organization interact with the employees’ unconscious
motivations and ideation.
5. Challenge individuals who use splitting (a process whereby we simplify a complex
situation by attributing all its ‘x’ characteristics to one of a pair, and all its ‘y’ characteristics to
the other e.g. Goodies and Baddies) in their organisational framing, or organisations where
splitting has become institutionalised
6. Continue to remind participants that all work systems have technical, human and social
aspects and these are interdependent rather than allowing them to perceive them in separate
configurations
7. Ensure whether the method that is being developed has the requisite characteristics that
will in fact enable it to facilitate transition.
8. When working with an individual or a group in an organisation include something of the
other individuals and departments, the products, the technologies, the markets, the geography,
the legal framework and the history.
In addition to the five core OD theories there are other theories that a solid OD practitioners
must understand to build on their theoretical foundation for practice. Good grounding in
theory is essential for every OD practitioner. The better you understand the theory, the better
you will understand the complex and intricate nature of the OD process and OD tool kit.
The Psychodynamic approach includes all the theories in psychology that see human
functioning based upon the interaction of drives and forces within the person or organisation,
particularly unconscious, and between the different structures of the personality.
Psychodynamic Theory explores, experiences that have been pushed out of conscious
awareness and argues that individuals and organisations have an unconscious that contains
vulnerable feelings that are too difficult to be consciously aware of and as a result have
developed defence mechanisms, such as denial, repression, rationalisation, etc., but that these
defences cause more harm than good and that once the vulnerable or painful experiences are
processed th e defence mechanisms reduce or resolve.
At its core the theory emphasises the examination and resolution of inner conflicts helping
organisations and individuals gain a perspective of pure insight in order to recognise the
character traits, actions, responses, and behaviours that need to be transformed if performance
is to be achieved.
The application of the theory in the organisational setting seeks to uncover the underlying
conflicts that are the catalysts for the disturbing and unhealthy symptoms. The first job of the
OD practitioner is to address the symptoms before working with the client to devise and
construct elements of change that can be implemented.
Human behaviour and relationships are shaped by conscious and unconscious
influences.
All behaviour has a cause or reason (usually unconscious). Therefore all behaviour is
determined.
Different parts of the unconscious mind are in constant struggle.
Personality is made up of three parts (i.e. tripartite). The id, ego and super-ego.
Behaviour is motivated by two instinctual drives: Eros (the sex drive & life instinct) and
Thanatos (the aggressive drive & death instinct). Both these drives come from the “id”.
Parts of the unconscious mind (the id and superego) are in constant conflict with the
conscious part of the mind (the ego).
1. Design activities that work to expose areas of transference and resistance
2. Develop processes for addressing difficult and challenging issues in order to develop
cohesive and supportive relationships within the organisation.
3. Encourage groups and teams to experiment and express themselves creatively as a
method for strengthening their bond and accessing deeper tools of communication.
4. Address questions such as “What does it mean that this organisation, with their unique
history and concerns, is doing or saying this particular thing at this time? How might past
experiences be impacting the organisation now? What are the unspoken expectations and
underlying beliefs that are limiting potential?”
a psychodynamic theory is a view that explains personality in terms of conscious and unconscious forces,
such as unconscious desires and beliefs. In the early 20th century, Sigmund Freud proposed a
psychodynamic theory according to which personality consists of the id (responsible for instincts and
pleasure-seeking), the superego (which attempts to obey the rules of parents and society), and the ego
(which mediates between them according to the demands of reality). Psychodynamic theories commonly
hold that childhood experiences shape personality. Such theories are associated with psychoanalysis, a
type of therapy that attempts to reveal unconscious thoughts and desires. Not all psychologists accept
psychodynamic theories, and critics claim the theories lack supporting scientific data. Other theories of
personality include behavioral and humanist theories.
In addition to the five core OD theories there are other theories that a solid OD
practitioner must understand to build on their theoretical foundation for practice. Good
grounding in theory is essential for every OD practitioner. The better you understand the
theory, the better you will understand the complex and intricate nature of the OD process and
OD tool kit.
Group Dynamic Theory in Brief
Kurt Lewin had a profound impact on thinking regarding Group Dynamics. Two key ideas
emerged out of field theory that are crucial to an appreciation of group process:
interdependence of fate, and task interdependence.
Interdependence of fate – Groups come into being when people realize their fate depends on
the fate of the group as a whole. A group will contain individuals of very different character,
but when an individual learns how much his own fate depends on the fate of the entire group
he will proactively take responsibility for his part in the groups welfare. However, Lewin argued
that Interdependence of fate can be a fairly weak form of interdependence in many groups.
Task interdependence – Lewin argued a more significant factor is where there is
interdependence in the goals of group members. In other words, if the group’s task is such that
members of the group are dependent on each other for achievement, then a powerful dynamic
is created. Task interdependence can be positive or negative. In negative interdependence –
known more usually as competition – one person’s success is another’s failure. Positive
interdependence results in the group being a ‘dynamic whole.’
One of the most interesting pieces of Group Dynamics work concerned the exploration of
different styles or types of leadership on group structure and member behaviour. Three classic
group leadership models we studied – democratic, autocratic and laissez-faire. The research
concluded that there was more originality, group-mindedness and friendliness in democratic
groups. In contrast, there was more aggression, hostility, scapegoating and discontent in
laissez-faire and autocratic groups.
Key Points of Group Dynamic Theory
Groups under conditions of positive interdependence were generally more co-operative
and tend to be productive as compared to those working under negative task
Democracy must be learned anew in each generation, and that it is a far more difficult
form of social structure to attain and to maintain than is autocracy
The difference in behaviour in autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire situations is not,
on the whole, a result of individual differences.
Democracy cannot be imposed on people, but has to be learnt by a process of voluntary
and responsible participation.
Change and periods of transition needs to be facilitated and guided.
Motivation for change must be generated before change can occur. Participants must be
helped to re-examine many cherished assumptions about self, relationships and the group as
part of the process.
Applying Group Dynamic Theory in an OD Intervention
1. Encourage the senior leadership team to be the same as any good teacher, becoming
unnecessary, and allowing natural leaders to rise from the group during a period of transition.
2. Asking the Leader to change one or more of their characteristics or replace the leader
with another person to harness the power of an informal group
3. Systematically rotate out of the group its leaders and its key members in order to
facilitate the emergence of a leader who has aims similar to the organisation
4. Be alert to leaders sympathetic to the organisations objectives and use them toward the
betterment of the formal groups effectiveness.
5. Locate the best person in the group who is the best position to facilitate the smooth
flow of information among group members
6. Encourage group discussion and decision-making, and ensure participants regardless of
position, treat each other as peers.
7. Use a feedback activity to enable participants to engage in active dialogue about
differences of interpretation and observation of the events by those who had participated in
them.
8. Develop a creative tension in the learning environment, bringing together the immediate
experiences of the participants and the conceptual models of the facilitators in an open
atmosphere where inputs from each perspective could challenge and stimulate the other.
9. Observe the behaviour patterns of the group through interviews and asking the group
members to identify their own norms; as members become aware of negative norms they
commonly reject them and seek to change their behaviour.
10. Create an environment in which values and beliefs can be challenged.
11. Develop the group as students of OD tools, providing the group with models for
organizing ideas through brief lectures, reading material, handouts and experiential learning
techniques.
12. Involve group members in the decision making process to reduce feelings of alienation
and also improve communication between leaders and their employees and thereby reducing
conflict
