ABSTRACT
The interpretation of the complexity sciences in organizational terms usually takes the form of the direct application to organizations of the concepts developed by the natural complexity scientists, sometimes also using their modelling techniques. I will call this the scientifi c approach. For some, this scientifi c modelling approach represents an addition to the techniques available for the prediction, or at least better understanding, of organizational development and so offers prospects of more effective control and greater success. For others adopting this approach, complexity implies signifi cant unpredictability so that the contribution from the models is a deeper understanding of organizational dynamics which can point to counterintuitive strategies. Although many taking the scientifi c approach would disagree that the natural scientifi c method refl ects an implicit ideology to do with progress and control, others argue that it does and are critical of the abstract, quantitative nature of scientifi c models when applied to organizational life because recognizable human individuals disappear. Instead, they turn to the natural complexity sciences as providers of metaphors leading to the metaphorical approach. Here, the attributes of complex phenomena are used to make claims about the nature of organizations and provide prescriptions for their effective management. There is a rapid move to equating organizational life with chaos, or the edge of chaos, for example, in which order emerges from the bottom up. This can quickly lead to prescriptions of empowerment, decentralized control and facilitating forms of leadership. The refl ection of the writers’ ideologies tends to be much more obvious in this approach, if still often unacknowledged. The metaphorical approach also lends itself to some rather mystical interpretations of the ideal for life in organizations.
