February 5, 2008
Dear Prospective Dissertation Chair,
Fast-paced, turbulent and chaotic environments create tensions that then enable triggers that force organizations to adapt and coevolve in unpredictable ways in order to survive. Organizations, as complex adaptive systems (CAS), represent dissipative structures that maximize entropy by transforming one type of order into another, that then requires them to change in a rapid continuous or less frequent and more radical punctuated equilibrium manner to dissipate the tensions that arise from interfacing with their environment. Balancing of these tensions enables an organization to become poised at the edge of chaos, far from equilibrium, where optimal emergence takes place that enables a new order necessary for survival. Those organizations better able to balance these adaptive tensions can remain poised at the edge of chaos for longer periods of time or more frequently and experience greater levels of innovation through emergence that leads to new order and long-term survival.
The teleology and autogenesis of all complex adaptive systems is survival, based upon perpetuation and expansion of the system, which drives them towards adaptation and coevolution in the short-term and survival in the long. Adaptive tensions are at the center of their teleology and autogenesis, and without adaptive tensions systems could not innovate, sustain themselves or grow. In fact, without adaptive tensions, there would be no purpose to the systems existence at all. Therefore, organizations must better understand the role of adaptive tensions and the process whereby they can balance these tensions to ensure survival. For without balancing these tensions, systems either collapse or explode. To do so, we must first understand: What are adaptive tensions? Where do they come from? What causes these tensions to emerge? How do they operate? How are they balanced? What role does leadership and structuration play in creating and balancing these tensions? Are there good tensions and bad tensions? Should organizations be structured to create tensions? If so, then how and what type? Is there a duality to tension balancing in that, systems must have a balancing process and capability that then result in a resulting structure that ensures future tensions will emerge? And, does balancing them enable a complex adaptive system to remain poised at the edge of chaos and enjoy optimal emergence? These questions enable us to address those issues necessary to develop a useful theory of tensions by answering the four questions of “What” (content), “How” (process), “Why” (purpose), and “Under What Conditions” (boundaries and constraints).
I define tensions as an energy force initiated by cues and caused by perceptions of uncertainty that compels a system to explore innovative alternatives and take prudent risks. To understand these tensions, we must understand the different types of uncertainty that the system creates, as well as the role of absorptive and transformative capacity in exploring and exploiting innovative alternatives to address the uncertainty and how systems take risk to balance these tensions. We must also understand how prudent risk taking occurs, which is at the heart of the balancing process and that ensures a structure that enables future tensions to emerge that avoid collapse or explosion of the system.
We believe that the origin of tension arises from uncertainty relating to the appropriate mix of stability and variability in various organizational processes that result in changes necessary for survival. The pulling and stretching between stability and variability can be found among nearly all organizational constructs, as outlined below:
Change: incremental vs radical
Learning: individual vs organizational
Leadership: great man vs distributed
Culture: integrated vs fragmented
Capacity: transformative vs absorptive
Strategy: central planning vs peripheral strategizing
Structure: hierarchical vs loosely coupled
Sensemaking: retrospective vs prospective
Risk: minimize vs optimize
Systems: closed vs open
Performance: decline (stasis) vs growth
Value: efficiency vs effectiveness
These tensions resulting from stretching a system between stability and variability disrupts the equilibrium within a system and forces changes necessary to meet the demands of requisite variety for survival. This disequilibrium creates an imbalance among the three elements of emergence (variation, interaction, selection) within a CAS and between a CAS and its environment. The tensions within each of these elements are as follows: variation: homogeneity vs heterogeneity; interaction: independence vs interdependence; selection: compulsions vs choice. Balancing of adaptive tensions requires a duality found within structuration theory where the balancing is both a process of adaptation as well as an outcome of a strucutural system that ensures future tensions will emerge to force that must be balanced. Emergent, shared and formal leadership processes support this structuration duality and enable emergence order that balances these adaptive tensions.
The purpose of my dissertation is to develop a theory of balancing adaptive tensions to provide a better understanding of the sources, roles, needs, processes, outcomes, and effects of adaptive tensions within a complex adaptive system. The intended context for the research is within an open innovation strategic structure for creating and developing new technologies. My research questions are: What are adaptive tensions and what role do they play in organizational adaptation, coevolution and survival? How do tensions impact emergence that leads to innovation and adaptation within organization? How and why do organizations take prudent risks to balance these tensions and maintain an optimal level of tension so that they adapt and coevolve rather than collapse or explode? And, under what conditions do adaptive tensions emerge, become balanced, and enabled new order to emerge?
Sincerely,
Christopher L Wasden
