DPLS 772sp07 - Complexity and Organizational Leadership

DPLS 772 – Complexity and Organizational Leadership
Spring 2007                                                          3 credits

Professor: Chris Francovich, Ed.D.
Office Phone: 509-323-3592
E-mail: francovich@gonzaga.edu
Office hours: Please call for an appointment
Class Logistics:

Thursday evenings 6-10
Room: 216
Dates: Jan. 11, 18, Feb. 1, 15, March 1, 8, 29, April 12

Course Overview

This course is a survey of complexity theories as understood or applied in society, organizations, and to the self. The course is also an inquiry into the roots of complexity thinking. Inquiring into complexity is an outgrowth of the possibilities and cynicism of the post-modern landscape. Communications and the consequent physical networks of coordination and movement have increased the complexity and uncertainty of society. This course is a seminar on this general situation. The course is also about how it is that we can know what is best for ourselves and others in the context of leading one’s self or others into an uncertain future.

The course begins with an overview of our own perspectives on complexity. Selected readings will introduce chaos theory and dissipative systems. We will also look in depth at complex adaptive systems. We will critically analyze and review current applications and interpretations of complexity and systems thinking through the lens of participative and ethical leadership and governance.

Selected readings will help bridge the gap between adaptive, rational, natural law  and transformative teleologies. Complexity as an object of inquiry requires patience, tolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty, and a willingness to both share and accept your own and others’ incomprehension and confusion. This course is structured as a dialogic participative inquiry. Dr. Francovich will present ideas using slides and notes.

Course Hopes and Aims

• To develop a sound foundation in the basic vocabulary and concepts of complexity
• To understand and apply fundamental concepts of complexity to our own experience or work situations
• To relate ethical, normative, and teleological arguments to complexity and the notion of complex adaptive systems.
• To stimulate and stretch our thinking about leadership, complexity, and the world
• To connect the phenomena of complexity to the ethics of leadership

Assignments, & Grading

• Read all materials and attend all classes and participate with all your attention. Please let me know if you intend to miss any classes. (10% of Grade)
• Pre Class assignment – Read Richardson & Cilliers: What is Complexity Science? & Capra: Complexity & Life (available on Blackboard) and write a 3 pages response (excluding title & reference pages) to the articles that addresses the question: How can the ideas expressed in these articles help inform the study and practice of leadership? Be prepared to read and/or present your response to the class. (15% of Grade)
• Mid-term paper. Due March 5th. 8-12 page (excluding title pages) paper in APA format discussing the implications for ethics, ethical decision making, and leadership when using complexity science as a basis for establishing the ‘reality’ of situations. (35% of Grade)
• Final paper. Due April 16th. 12 – 18 page (excluding title pages) paper in APA format. This paper should synthesize and summarize for you the course as a whole. What have you learned and what has been stimulated in you as a result of this course? Please use your imagination and feel free to exercise wide latitude in creating a topic for discussion. (40% of Grade)

Expectations and Assessment

Assessment of doctoral work in leadership studies is problematic for me. Interdisciplinary work dealing with complex and sometimes contested theories and concepts requires (from my perspective) a tolerance for uncertainty, ambiguity, and contingency. I am also struck by the need for a high degree of self-directed behavior on the part of doctoral students and candidates. I would like my teaching style, assessment policy, and rubrics to support and facilitate self-direction.

However, behind my questions about assessment and uncertainty in evaluating anyone in an absolute manner there does reside (in my view) a set of skills that serve to hold and shape work with language in a complex world. I believe we need a grammar, syntax, and semantics of clarity, coherence, depth, and breadth. My assumption at the beginning of the term is that all of the students in this class possess the requisite skills, talents, and propensities needed to be clear, cogent, and complete. I admit that the standards I refer to are objectively stated and subjectively enacted. My assessment will be based on the quality and content of expressed thought as exhibited in both written assignments and classroom presentations and participation.

Grading Criteria for Written Work (adapted from the DPLS Academic papers rubric)

Content Criteria:

The content of papers should reflect the level and style of content in readings and discussions. There is an expectation that doctoral students will reach outside of their comfort zone in terms of appropriation of ideas, concepts, and frameworks. The substance of papers and other writings will be weighed against the general level of discourse in class meetings and the style and density of expression of the readings.

Thought and Expression Criteria

Student writing should raise vital questions or issues, formulating them clearly and precisely. I will be looking for evidence of breadth and depth and the insightful, in-depth analysis of complex ideas. Main points should be developed and supported  with relevant information and references that are appropriately incorporated.

The organization and logic of your writing is critical. The expectation is for well focused, well organized, and well reasoned conclusions. The writing should flow with the reader not  getting lost or having to work to determine what you are saying.

There is also an expectation that your writing/thinking has an open and inclusive character when exploring alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as appropriate, their assumptions, implications, and/or practical consequences.

Technical Criteria

Your writing should be clear and demonstrate a high level of vocabulary through careful word choice. Sentences should be constructed skillfully and purposefully. Transitions between paragraphs and sections are important and will evaluated for their efficacy in weaving your concepts, themes, and purposes together. Summaries and conclusions are also vital elements of good writing and will be evaluated based on their appropriateness and effectiveness.

Of course grammar, punctuation, and spelling are expected to be flawless. Careful proof reading of your paper is a basic expectation.

Papers, unless otherwise noted are to be completed in APA style. References should be cited properly within the text and a complete reference list must be provided. Appropriate use of headings will also be noted.

Point/Grade correspondence:

95-100%     = A
90-94.99%  = A-
85-90%       = B
80-84.99%  = B-

Required Texts

Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. (2000). Harnessing Complexity: Organizational implications of a scientific frontier. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-00550-0

Stacey, R. D., Griffin, D., & Shaw, P. (2000). Complexity and management: Fad or radical challenge to systems thinking?. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-24761-6

Griffin, D. (2002). The Emergence of Leadership: Linking self-organization and ethics. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-24917-1

Class Outline

Pre-class reading:  Richardson_Cilliers_What_is_ComplexityScience.pdf & Capra_Complexity&Life.pdf (available on Blackboard)

Jan 11: 

Readings discussed: Richardson_Cilliers_What_is_ComplexityScience.pdf & Capra_Complexity&Life.pdf

Reading assignment: Harnessing Complexity pp. xi - 61 and Richardson_SysTheory&Complexity#1&2.pdf (available on Blackboard)

Jan  18:

Readings discussed: Harnessing Complexity and  Richardson_SysTheory&Complexity#1&2.pdf

Reading assignment: Harnessing Complexity pp. 62 - 160 & Boulding_GenSysTheory.pdf (available on Blackboard)

Feb 1:

Readings discussed: Harnessing Complexity & Boulding_GenSysTheory.pdf

Reading assignment: Complexity & Management pp. 1 - 84 & Applied_Svyantek&Brown1.pdf (available on Blackboard)

Feb 15:

Readings Discussed: Complexity & Applied_Svyantek&Brown1.pdf

Reading Assignment:  Complexity & Management pp 85 - 126 (available on Blackboard)

Mar 1:

Readings Discussed: Complexity & Management

Reading Assignment: Complexity & Management pp 127 - 194 &  BLatour_Interobjectivity.pdf (available on Blackboard)

Mar 8:

Readings Discussed: Complexity & Management & BLatour_Interobjectivity.pdf

Reading Assignment: Emergence of Leadership pp. 1 - 122

Mar 29:

Readings Discussed: Emergence of Leadership

Reading Assignment: Emergence of Leadership pp. 124- 219

Apr 12:

Readings Discussed: Emergence of Leadership

Recommended Reading:

Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin Books.

Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden Order: How adaptation builds complexity. New York: Basic Books.

References & Bibliography

Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning. Malden. Massachusetts: Blackwell Business.

Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Bantam Books.

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Blackmore, S. (1999). The Meme Machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. London: Routledge.

Bowker, G. C., Leigh-Starr, S., Turner, W., Gasser Les, & Eds. (1997). Social Science, Technical Systems, and Cooperative Work: Beyond the great divide. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Burke, W. W. (2002). Organization Change: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.

Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.

Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen & R.-l. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferdman, B. M. (1990). Literacy and cultural identity. Harvard Educational Review, 60(2), 181-204.

Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Habermas, J. (1981, 1987). The theory of communicative action (Vol 1 & 2) (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.

Heft, H. (2001). Ecological Psychology in Context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the Legacy of William James’ Radical Empiricism. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Heider, F. (1926). Thing and Medium. In On Perception and Event Structure, and the Psychological Environment (pp. 1 - 35). (Psychological Issues, vol. 1, no. 3). New York: International Universities Press.

Luhmann, N. (1984/1995). Social Systems (J. J. Bednarz & D. Baecker, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Maturana, H. (1978). Biology of Language: The epistemology of reality. In G. Miller & E. Lennenberg (Eds.), Psychology and Biology of Language and Thought: Essays in honor of Eric Lennenberg (pp. 27-63). New York: Academic Press Inc.

Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1987). The tree of knowledge; The biological roots of human understanding. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Merali, Y. (2004). Complexity and Information Systems. In J. Mingers & L. Willcocks (Eds.), Social Theory and Philosophy for Information Systems (pp. 407 - 446). Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Mingers, J. (1995). Self-producing systems; Implications and applications of autopoiesis. New York: Plenum Press.

Rayner, A. D. (1997). Degrees of Freedom: Living in Dynamic Boundaries. London, UK: Imperial College Press.

Reed, E. S. (1996). Encountering the world: Toward an ecological psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rosen, R. (2000). Essays on Life Itself. In Complexity in Ecological Systems. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Schoggen, P. (1989). Behavior Setting: A Revision and Extension of Roger G. Barker's Ecological Psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.

Strauss, A. L. (1993). Continual permutations of action. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions : The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wheatley, M. J. (1994). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc