CwO Papers + Cases:

- Lecture 1:
 Papers:
 Scott, 2003
o Organizations as Open Systems
 Stacey, 2011 CAS
o Complex adaptive systems
 Stacey, 2011 Open Systems
o Thinking in terms of organizational psychodynamics
o – open systems and psychoanalytic perspectives
 Van de Ven et al., 2013
o Returning to the Frontier of Contingency Theory of Organizational and
Institutional Designs

- Workgroup 1:
 Papers:
 Chick, 1997
o Cultural Complexity: the concept and its measurement
 Seel, 2000
o Culture and Complexity: New Insights on Organizational Change
 Browaeys & Baets
o Cultural complexity: a new epistemological perspective
 Case:
 That’s just Joe Sage (business case)

- Workgroup 2:
 Papers:
 Martell, 2012
o From bias to exclusion: A multilevel emergent theory of gender
segregation in organizations
 Case:
 The Harvard Business School Gender Case

- Workgroup 3:
 Papers:
 McDaniel, 2007
o Managment strategies for complex adaptive systems
o : sensemaking, learning and improvisation
 Chiva, 2010
o Adaptive and Generative Learning
o : implications from complexity theories
 Case:
 Paywall analysis
- Workgroup 4:
 Papers:
 Arrow, McGrath & Berdahl
o Small groups as complex systems
o Formation, coordination development, and adaptation
 Hoogeboom & Wilderdom, 2020
o A complex adaptive systems approach to real-life team interaction
patterns, task context, information sharing, and effectiveness
 Case:
 Analysis of interaction patterns in multidisciplinary team meetings in oncology

- Workgroup 5:
 Papers:
 Smit et al. Chapter 11
o Meetings as a facilitator of multiteam system functioning
 Shuffler, 2018
o Teamwork situated in Multiteam Systems
o : key lessons learned and future opportunities
 Case:
 Emergency situations (9/11)

- Workgroup 6:
 Papers:
 Oerlemans, Peeters & Schaufeli, 2009
o Ethnic diversity at work: an overview of theories and research
 Cases:
 Rabobank – Subeliani & Tsogas, 2005
o Managing diversity in the Netherlands: a case study of Rabobank
 BMW mini - Moore, 2017
o No one reason for it: workforce diversity, cultural complexity, and staff
retention at BMW MINI
Papers contents:
- Lecture 1:
 Scott, 2003
 Organizations as Open Systems
 Stacey, 2011 CAS
 Complex adaptive systems
 Stacey, 2011 Open Systems
 Thinking in terms of organizational psychodynamics
 – open systems and psychoanalytic perspectives
 Van de Ven et al., 2013
 Returning to the Frontier of Contingency Theory of Organizational and
Institutional Designs

- Workgroup 1:
 Chick, 1997
 Cultural Complexity: the concept and its measurement

Aantekeningen Lucas:

Cultural complexity is one of the most commonly used variables in cross-cultural research,
as it correlates with numerous other variables. 8 measures of cultural complexity have
been constructed since the late 1940s. 3 are examined (Carneiro, Murdock & Provost;
Naroll), and in particular, their validity. Factor analysis and reliability analysis indicate that
Murdock & Provost’s index (designed for use with the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample),
although reliable, has two limitations and may lack content and construct validity. A case
is made for the use of logarithm of the size of the largest settlement in a society as a
measure of cultural complexity, as suggested by Naroll.

The exact meaning of cultural complexity is often assumed, and rarely operationally
defined. It is customarily assumed that complexity is the natural and typical result of a
cultural evolution (which is progressive). There is also some discrepancies between the
definitions and assumptions of the construct (explicitly and implicitly).
This paper:
- Are operationalizations of cultural complexity derived from particular, explicit,
definitions of culture?
- Are operationalizations of cultural complexity based on notions of complexity
beyond intuitive or ‘dictionary’ definitions?
 These are issues of validity. Attention on scale by Naroll (1956) and Carneiro
(1962, 1970), but especially on Murdock and Provost (1973), as it is based on
the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample – currently the most widely used sample in
cross-cultural comparative research). Murdock and Provost’s scale: issue of
reliability.

Four types of definitions of culture

1. Culture as mental: Culture refers to systems of shared ideas, to the conceptual
 designs, the shared systems of meaning, that underlie the ways in which people
live.
(Keesing, 1976, p139).
2. Culture as mental and behavioural: Culture is the set of learned values, behaviors,
and beliefs, that are characteristic of a particular society or population.
(Ember & Ember. 1988, p167).
3. Culture as mental, behavioral and material: Culture is the conventional patterns of
thought, activity, and artifact that are passed on from generation to generation in a
manner that is generally assumed to involved learning rather than specific genetic
programming.
(Brown, 1991, p40).
4. Culture as information: It is possible to regard all culture as information and to
view any single culture as an ‘information economy’in which information is
received or created, retrieved, transmitted, utilized and even lost. (Robers, 1964,
p438).

Summary of paper:
- Cultural complexity is a useful construct. Properly operationalized, it should relate
to many other cultural variables and may even inform about the evolution of
culture and other forms of cultural change. However, as I have argued above, I
believe that most current operationalizations of cultural complexity have
shortcomings, including the following.
1. current operationalizations of the construct seem not to be precisely based on
explicit definitions of culture.
2. current measures are based on implicit, commonsense notions of complexity,
resulting in operationalizations of complexity by accretion or by elaboration.
3. current operationalizations tend to be ethnocentric and based on technology,
the hallmark of Western civilization.
 all of these issues deal with validity
 (few more reasons in paper)
Because of these objections, it may be best to use a single
indicator of sociocultural complexity and the single best indicator
of cultural complexity may be (the logarithm of the) size of the
largest settlement in a society, as argued by Bowden (1972), Naroll
and Divale (1976), and implied by others, including Carneiro
(1987).

Criterion-related validity is normally thought of as coming in

two varieties:
1. Concurrent validity is assessed by correlating a measure and a criterion that exist
at the same point in time, whereas
2. predictive validity is assessed by correlating a measure with a criterion that will
exist at some point in the future (Carmines & Zeller, 1979).
 Seel, 2000
 Culture and Complexity: New Insights on Organizational Change

Aantekeningen Lucas:
Organisation culture is the emergent result of the continuing negotiations about values,
meanings and proprieties between the members of that organisation and with its
environment

The cultural web: model of culture may help to explain the difference between the 2
approaches:
1. organisations are usually, and preferably, in one state or another. (unfreeze-
change-freeze)
2. we can make organisations change; that by effective analysis, proper planning and
appropriate action we can guarantee an outcome.

A paradigm: is a constellation of concepts, values, perceptions and practices shared by a

community, which forms a particular vision of reality that is the basis of the way a
community organises itself. (Capra 1997:6)

The nature of emergence: …the process by which patterns or global-level structures arise
from interactive locallevel processes. This “structure” or “pattern” cannot be understood
or predicted from the behavior or properties of the component units alone. (Mihata
1997:31)
Emergent process (figure 2):
a. A system of diverse agents:
b. Richly connected
c. Gives rise to an emergent pattern
d. Which feeds back down into the system

Conclusion:
I have covered a lot of ground in this article and there is much more to say on many of the
topics. My aim is to open some avenues for thought and exploration rather than to
present finished work. Nevertheless, I believe that by adopting a complexity perspective
we can look at organisational culture and change in completely different ways. We start to
realise that organisations cannot be changed according to plan or desire; instead the best
we can do is to try to build new connections and relationships so that a process of self-
organisation can take place. Then it is just a question of waiting and trying to make sure
that the forces for stability do not move it away from the critical state (actually, I believe
that it is possible to have a significant influence on the outcome even though one cannot
determine it, but that is another article). We also come to see that the best place for the
change agents to be is within the system; working from outside is likely to be far less
effective.

This is such a different way of working that it is hard for both clients and consultants.
Consultants have been used to offering apparently rational approaches to change which
satisfy clients’ needs for certainty and assurance. The complexity consultant cannot do this
and it takes a brave client to be prepared to accept that a complexity approach actually
offers a better chance of a favourable outcome than a conventional mechanical proposal.
It’s also scary for the consultant. The old check lists and prescriptions have gone, to be
replaced by intuition and creativity. You can end up feeling very exposed and inadequate
but when it works it feels great! I urge you to give it a try.
 Browaeys & Baets
 Cultural complexity: a new epistemological perspective

Aantekeningen Lucas:

Complexity is defined by its sources, its principles and its objective.

Culture is a complex process. This process does not go in good harmony with the
traditional ways – based on the Cartesian epistemology – of the management of
organizations which simplifies too much to be satisfying.
But what does cultural complexity mean? According to Sackmann (1997, p. 2) the concept
of cultural complexity “encompasses both ideas: simultaneously existing multiple cultures
that may contribute to a homogenous, differentiated, and/or fragmented cultural
context”. Hence, the cultural complexity perspective suggests that culture in
organizational settings is much more complex, pluralistic, diverse, contradictory, or
inherently “paradoxical” than it appears at first sight.

“we will invent diversity more quickly than we will make it homogeneous” (Benkirane,
2003, p. 217).

Genelot (1998, p. 195) stresses that men are products of their culture: “their
representations, their visions of what is good and what is wrong, their behaviour in work,
their concepts of organisations are the fruit of the representations carried by their
ancestors”.

“des principes supralogiques d’organisation de la pense´e” (“Metalogical principles to

organize our thinking”)
“the formation, reformulation and full employment of a way of thinking which is at the
same time dialogical, recursive and hologrammatic”

Le Moigne (1995) stresses systemic modelling: “a complex system is, by definition, a

system which one holds for irreducible to a finite model, whatever the complexity and
sophistication of this model, whatever its size, the number of its components, intensity of
their interactions ... The abstract notion of complexity implies that of unforeseeable
factors, of plausible emergence of new elements and intrinsic properties which one holds
for complex”

For better seizing the paradigm of complexity, Morin (1990, pp. 98-101) proposes three
guiding principles which can help to think complexity, the dialogic principle, the
hologrammic principle and the principle of recursivity:
1. The dialogic principle that offers the opportunity to maintain duality (e.g. between
 subject and object or agency and structure) while at the same time transcending
that duality and creating a unity of the whole.
2. The principle of recursivity, in which causes simultaneously are effects. Individuals
create the society which in turn creates the individuals. This is a recursive process,
and as such this breaks with the idea of linearity and a causal linear relationship
between input and output underlying traditional organizational thinking.
3. The hologrammic principle which goes beyond reductionism, that only sees the
parts, and holism, that only sees the whole. Holons or whole/parts are entities that
are both wholes and parts of ever greater wholes, simultaneously and at all times.

In search of the fundamental principle of the organization, Larrasquet (1999, p. 453)

proposes a “holistic complex approach” that respects two logics, which he names the
“holon” of the organization: “it means the fundamental dialogic unit of two inseparable
principles for comprehending and constructing an organization”

New approach to think about culture in globalizing business world, and a link between
individual, culture and orgs.:
- The dialogic principle
- The principle of recursivity is a concept of self-production and self-org
- The hologrammic principle

- Sensemaking!

Conclusion:
In this contribution we have proposed another epistemology to approach the cultural
complexity of international organizations through the complexity thinking paradigm. First,
we have argued with Morin and LeMoigne (1999, p. 266) that “complexity thinking is not
reduced to either science or philosophy, but allows their communication by operating the
shuttle between the two”. Second, we have outlined the concepts and principles which
forms the framework of this paradigm, and we have given some examples in applying
them. We are convinced that further research on theses issues related to the culture of
organizations using this theoretical approach will be usefully to learn about the cultural
complexity of the globalization business world. In this paper an attempt is made to discuss
the conditions for organizational learning, rather than the process itself. The paradigm of
complexity thinking “la pense é complexe” is very instrumental for this improved
understanding.

- Workgroup 2:
 Martell, 2012
 From bias to exclusion: A multilevel emergent theory of gender segregation in
organizations

The overarching goal of this article is to move the ongoing debate regarding the real-world
consequences of gender bias in performance assessment on to more fertile ground.

a. introduce theory and research on emergent phenomena as a basis for better

understanding the effects of gender bias on organizational segregation;
b. present agent-based modeling as a useful but under-utilized research method for
 illuminating the manner in which gender bias produces differences in
organizational mobility and status attainment that favor men over women;
c. provide examples of how the theory of emergence can capture the manner in
which micro-level and macro-level forces conspire, oftentimes unwittingly, to
produce a gender-segregated organization; and
d. examine the implications of treating gender segregation as an emergent
phenomena for future research and organizational practice. The arguments
contained in this article are based primarily on three key ideas:
1. Gender segregation in organizations is an emergent phenomenon that arises
from the collective behavior of individuals who express only a modest gender-
based preference, in concert with the signals governing promotion and
organizational mobility.
2. The emergence of a segregated organization may be unintentional and the
dynamics that produce gender segregation difficult to see.
3. Agent-based modeling is well-suited for illuminating the dynamics of bias that
contribute to the production and maintenance of gender-segregated
organizations.

As we see it, the debate has fallen victim to what evolutionary biologist Mayr (1988)
labeled the error of explanatory reductionism which presumes that large-scale entities are
but the product of their constituent elements.
Indeed, a key tenet of a multilevel approach is the importance of resisting the atomistic
fallacy (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000) in which it is assumed, wrongly, that organizational
structures or phenomena can be understood by simply aggregating individual-level effects
(see Hackman, 2003; Mayr, 1988).
- Self-organization

Accordingly, we offer four propositions that are fundamental to our view of gender
segregation as an emergent phenomenon and whose adoption can help move
organizational scholars and practitioners beyond a debate that has remained unresolved
for far too long. Proposition
1. Gender segregation in organizations is an ‘‘emergent phenomenon,’’ emerging
from the interaction of decision-makers who are guided by a very modest
preference for male managers and, as we shall describe, the signals that govern
organizational mobility. Proposition
2. A modest preference for male managers may produce a macro-level entity,
namely, a gendersegregated organization, that was not intended. Proposition
3. Emergent processes can produce a gender-segregated organization that is self-
perpetuating due to the effects of downward causation. Proposition
4. Although observers internal and external to an organization may perceive the
segregated organization that emerges, the micro-level processes that produced it
can be extraordinarily difficult to see.

Below, we consider the nature of these signals and their likely effects on women’s
organizational mobility and the emergence of gender-segregated organizations. The
signals are introduced roughly in the order in which they come into play throughout an
employee’s organizational tenure.
 1. Judgements of performance
2. Early career success
3. Time-in-rank
4. Loss of a competition
5. Velocity
These promotion signals are critical—they represent the intervening forces (Eidelson,
1997) that ultimately shape the impact of gender bias on women as they attempt to reach
the highest levels of organizations.

Conclusion:
We shall conclude by noting that this article was prompted, on the one hand, by a
recognition of the scarcity of women in the highest levels of organizations and, on the
other, by the ongoing debate regarding the real-world impact of gender bias in
performance assessment. The question we faced is whether a modest bias in judgments of
work performance that favor men over women can contribute significantly to gender
segregation, particularly at very senior levels. We developed a multilevel emergent theory
of gendersegregation to addressthis question, with the explicit goal of moving the study of
gender bias and organizational segregation to a more productive place than the one it
occupies currently. We also introduced agent-based modeling as a research strategy that
is well-suited for examining the evolutionary nature of group stratification. Furthermore,
we presented the findings of two previous computer simulation studies (Martell et al.,
1996; Robison-Cox et al., 2007) that provide preliminary support for the ideas expressed in
this article, and we outlined a number of important research directions. Finally, we
identified the challenges posed to organizational scholars and practitioners, as well as
Supreme Court justices, in seeing the realworld consequences of gender bias in the
workplace. It is our hope that a multilevel emergent theory of gender segregation will
serve as a catalyst for future research aimed at enhancing the representation of female
managers in the executive suite.

- Workgroup 3:
 McDaniel, 2007
 Managment strategies for complex adaptive systems
 : sensemaking, learning and improvisation

CAS are characterized by:

1. Diverse agents that learn
2. That interact with each other in nonlinear ways, and therefore (nonlinear
interdependencies)
3. Self-organize (self-organization)
4. Have emergent properties, and (emergence)
5. Co-evolve with the environment (co-evolution)

Complex adaptive systems are made up of agents that are information processors with the
capacity to modify their behavior based on information they receive (Casti, 1997; Holland,
1995).

The essence of CAS is captured in the non-linear interactions among agents rather than in
agents themselves. There do not have to be a large number of connections among agents
to accomplish orderly and meaningful functions (Kauffman, 1995; McKelvey, 1999).
“Self-organization: is the spontaneous emergence of new structures and new forms of
behavior in open systems far from equilibrium, characterized by internal feedback loops
and described mathematically by nonlinear equations” (Capra, 1996, p. 85).

Emergence: is the development of novel and coherent patterns and properties during the
process of self-organization in a CAS (Goldstein, 1999).

CAS and their environments co-evolve such that each fundamentally influences the
development of the other (Kauffman, 1995, 1993). There is a constant dance of change.
 Working on ‘’fitness landscapes’’, improving their position on their fitness
landscape

When one examines the five basic characteristics of CAS it becomes clear that some
uncertainty, unpredictability, and surprise are the result of bounded rationality (the limits
of the human mind in formulating and solving complex problems; Simon, 1991), lack of
information, tight coupling (strong linkages between agents of a system such that a
change to one agent intensely affects other agents; Perrow, 1984) and interdependence of
systems components (Perrow, 1984).

Traditional management tasks are often summarized as command, control, and planning
(Morgan, 1996, see esp. pp. 11-31). Command is an effort to give clear, unambiguous
instructions to workers that will enable them to achieve organizational goals. Control can
be seen as an effort to determine, through the use of feedback, if the system is doing what
it is supposed to be doing—are goals being met. Planning is the process of making
decisions, based on predictions of future system states, about what to do now to achieve
desired goals in the future.

What should managers do in the face of the difficulties in using traditional management
strategies? Sensemaking, learning and improvisation should become central managerial
tasks instead of command, control and planning when managers recognize the fact that
organizations are complex adaptive systems.
 “[Sensemaking] involves turning circumstances into a situation that is
comprehended explicitly in words and serves as a springboard into action”
(Taylor & Van Every, 2000, p. 40). “Sensemaking is a diagnostic process directed
at constructing plausible interpretations of ambiguous cues that are sufficient
to sustain action” (Weick, 2005, p. 57). Sensemaking is not just a response to
bounded rationality but is fundamental because of the uncertainty of the
dynamics of the world.
 Learning is important in CAS because of dynamic unfolding of events in
unpredictable ways.
 Complex adaptive systems generate uncertainty and surprise, and dealing with
this situation requires improvisational behavior. Improvisation as defined by
Crossan and Sorrenti (1997, p. 156) is “intuition guiding action in a spontaneous
way.” Weick (1998, p. 544) uses the following, somewhat richer, definition of
improvisation that he borrows from Berliner: “Improvisation involves
reworking precomposed material and designs in relation to unanticipated ideas
 conceived, shaped, and transformed under the special conditions of
performance, thereby adding unique features to every creation” (Berliner,
1994, p. 241).

Newly found research questions!

Conclusion:
When one understands that organizations are complex adaptive systems and that they
share the characteristics of these systems, then the managerial focus for improving
performance shifts. It shifts from giving commands to enabling learning in real time. It
shifts from controlling what is going on to making sense of a world characterized by an
unpredictable dynamic. It shifts from planning based on forecasts of the future to making
it possible for workers to engage in improvisational behavior, thereby taking advantage, in
real time, of what unfolds. Instead of planning based around forecasts, which enables
managers to feel that they should tell workers what to do, or otherwise control the
actions of their staff, managers push decision-making authority down to their staff so that
workers can improvise in real-time and leverage the unfolding events. We improve
performance in CAS through sensemaking, learning and improvisation, rather than
through command, control and planning. These new tasks are social acts and they are all
dependent on patterns of relationships in the organization. Our role as managers becomes
preparing organizations to meet an unknowable future and unleashing the potential of our
organizations. Leadership has a different meaning in CAS and becomes the legitimization
of doubt rather than knowing what to do and giving others directions for them to follow
(Weick, 2001b). Great companies get remarkable performance from ordinary people while
not-so-great companies take talented people and manage to lose the benefits of their
talent, insight and motivation (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). When we mis-specify the nature of
organizations and act as though they were machine-like in their unfolding, then we fail
ourselves, our organizations and the ordinary people as well as the talented people, both
of whom are capable of remarkable performance. As managers, if we attend more
carefully to sensemaking, learning and improvisation and to the relationship systems that
enable these functions, then we will manage in ways that are more consistent with the
complex adaptive nature of our systems and we will make a positive contribution to
improvement of organizational performance.

 Chiva, 2010
 Adaptive and Generative Learning
 : implications from complexity theories

Interorganizational learning = OL

The word ‘complexity’ originates from the Latin word complexus, meaning comprehension
and wholeness; complexity theories explore the totality (the wholeness) of dynamics –
forces, energies, substances and forms – permeating the whole universe and connecting
everything that exists in a whirling web of dynamic interrelationships and interactions
(Dimitrov 2003).

However, one of the most recurring classifications used by researchers is the distinction
between:
  adaptive and
 generative learning (Senge 1990). Miner and Mezias (1996, 88) explain that, in
the OL literature, there are two streams of work:
1. incremental and radical learning. The former, described by Cyert and March
(1963), considers firms as incremental or adaptive learning systems in
which routines and the firm’s adapting behavior are essential for learning
(Miner and Mezias 1996).
2. The second stream, based on Argyris and Schön’s (1974, 1978) distinction
between single and double loop learning, stresses the importance of the
latter for organizations.
 Single loop learning implies the ability to detect and correct errors in
certain operating procedures, whereas double loop learning implies being
able to see beyond the situation and questioning operating norms.

Generative learning:
 Metanoia: to grasp the deeper meaning of learning, as learning also implies a
fundamental shift of mind.
 Recently, Senge et al. (2005) suggested that generative learning occurs through
a process (the ‘U’ process) that entails three major stages or elements: sensing,
presencing and realizing.

Fiol and Lyles (1985, 807) differentiate between lower-level and higher-level learning. The
former is a focused learning that may be mere repetition of past behaviors, adjustments in
part of what the organization does. Higher-level learning is related to the development of
complex rules and associations regarding new actions.

In Senge’s (1990) view, generative learning requires five disciplines:

1. personal mastery
2. mental models
3. shared vision
4. team learning
5. systemic thinking.

Self-organization: Dooley et al. (2003, 62) state that a basic assumption within complexity
theories is that organizations can be viewed as complex adaptive systems
 Self-organization is a process in which the internal organization of a system
increases in complexity without being guided or managed by an outside source.
No single program or agent completely determines the system’s behavior,
which is rather unpredictable and uncontrollable (Goodwin 1994). Pattern and
regularity emerge without the intervention of a central controller. Self-
organization is a natural consequence of interactions between simple agents
(Anderson 1999).
Emergence is unpredictable and uncontrollable, Griffin et al. (1998, 321) underline that it
is intelligible, as we can perceive the pattern of its evolution. Consequently, not just
anything could happen: there is an immanent rationale as to how the system unfolds a
generative process at work that goes beyond the correlation of causes and effects.

Complex adaptive systems are able to develop three types of behavior:

 1. stable,
2. unstable or
3. chaotic, and limited instability or tension between various forces that place them
at the edge of chaos.
 The edge of chaos is regarded as a phase change. According to Gell-Mann
(1994), this stage represents the ‘highest effective complexity’. If effective
complexity is defined in terms of the length of the model, it is low when there
is a high level of chaos and the environment is random, although the
algorithmic information complexity is very high (Stacey 1996, 96).

Implicate order: Einstein’s disciple Bohm (1980) used the theory of the implicate order to
present a new model of reality that contains a holistic view. It connects everything with
everything else. In principle, any individual element could reveal information about every
other element in the universe.
The idea is that there is a kind of internal memory in nature. Each kind of thing has a
collective memory.

Adaptive and generative learning:

Explicate order, as referred to by Bohm (1980), is the manifested world, which is

represented through knowledge, schemas, rules, mental models, paradigms, etc. Adaptive
learning involves any improvement or development of the explicate order through a
process of self-organization, which is attained when the system is at the edge of chaos.
Self-organization is a self-referential process that aims to improve or increase the
complexity of the explicate order without being guided or managed by an outside source.
Generative learning implies being able to see beyond the situation and questioning
operating norms (Argyris and Schön 1974). Senge’s (1990) concept of metanoia describes
it as a profound shift of mind.
Dialogue is defined by Isaacs (1993) as a sustained collective inquiry into the processes,
assumptions and certainties that make up everyday experience. In order to learn,
Krishnamurti (2005) maintains that one needs to be in a state of inquiry, which requires a
previous state of discontent. Discontent prompts a move to go beyond the limitations of
the actual model or tendency.

In sum, adaptive and generative learning carry out different processes and might be
catalyzed or facilitated by different factors.

Organizational learning: Consequently, and following March’s (1991) terms, the

exploration process might in our model take two modes: a self-organization process
(adaptive) and a self-transcendence process (generative).
Conclusion:
In sum, this paper seeks to provide a more holistic and complex conceptualization of
adaptive and generative learning within OL, challenging us to rethink the very basic
assumptions that underpin our definitions of learning and organizing, essentially grounded
in complexity theories.

- Workgroup 4:
 Arrow, McGrath & Berdahl
 Small groups as complex systems
 Formation, coordination development, and adaptation

Boek met 345 pagina’s keer kort doornemen!

 Hoogeboom & Wilderdom, 2020

 A complex adaptive systems approach to real-life team interaction patterns,
task context, information sharing, and effectiveness

Team interaction patterns are defined as sets of observable behaviors that evolve
sequentially and occur at certain time intervals. These patterns are, thus, sequential sets
of behavioral events which occur above and beyond chance, if they are all independently
distributed (Magnusson, 2000; Magnusson, Burgoon, & Casarrubea, 2016; Waller &
Kaplan, 2018).

Gorman et al. (2012) argued that recurring team interaction patterns can indicate whether
a team is in a more stable or adaptable mode.

heterogeneous team interaction patterns: They found that the more variety or complexity
there was in the patterns, the poorer the teams’ effectiveness. Interaction patterns within
teams can fluctuate also in terms of the degree of participation or collaboration (Lei et al.,
2016). To date, no prior empirical study has compared these three types of interaction
patterns.

Team members’ frequent sharing of task-relevant information is considered the bedrock

of team effectiveness.
The more information a team can share, analyze, store, and use, the greater the team’s
effectiveness, especially for knowledge-intensive teams (Schippers, Homan, & van
Knippenberg, 2013; Tost, Gino, & Larrick, 2013). Team members’ proactive sharing of
information produces apt team knowledge, which improves coordination as well as
decision-making (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994; Marks, Zaccaro, & Mathieu, 2000; van
Ginkel & van Knippenberg, 2009; Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001).

- Types of patterns:
 A specific interaction pattern that is likely to influence both team information
sharing and effectiveness is the so-called recurring team interaction pattern
 In addition to recurring patterns, heterogeneous team interaction patterns may
also affect team effectiveness. When the heterogeneity of team interaction
patterns is high, the total number of different interaction patterns in a team is
high.1 Such heterogeneity, thus, entails a relatively large range of different
team interaction patterns (Kanki, Folk, & Irwin, 1991).
 A third type of pattern, participative team interaction, is also assumed to co-
occur with a high degree of perceived information sharing and subsequent
team effectiveness. Earlier research on team interaction and communication
dynamics has shown that greater amounts of communicative action or
participation among leaders and followers nurture the revelation of new
information (Cotton, 1993).

In team research, the difference between a routine and nonroutine task context has been
highlighted as one of the most powerful moderators of team interaction and a contingent
condition of information sharing.
Routine team contexts include team tasks that are more predictable and are handled with
standardized work procedures and efficient team interaction (e.g., Resick, Murase,
Randall, & DeChurch, 2014). Nonroutine contexts, in contrast, involve team tasks that
occur in less predictable situations, with frequent change, requiring relatively unique
interactive team behaviors.

Drawing upon the structural contingency approach (Drach-Zahavy & Freund, 2007), which
stresses that the optimal course of action is dependent upon the situation, it is likely that
the effectiveness of different team interaction patterns is contingent upon the task
context (Agliati, Vescovo, & Anolli, 2006; L. A. Perlow, Gittell, & Katz, 2004). Knowledge-
intensive teams tend to work on more ambiguous or nonroutine team tasks.

When a team displays recurring interaction patterns, it relies on a habitual mode of

interaction. Kozlowski and colleagues (1999) theorized about the opposite: To be effective,
teams undertaking complex or rapidly changing work must integrate their members’
knowledge in an ongoing process of mutual adjustment (Chung & Jackson, 2013;
Thompson, 1967; Van de Ven, Delbecq, & Koenig, 1976).

Viewing teams as CAS, one could argue that nonroutine team tasks require proactive
anticipation or continuous adaptation by team members: In such 12 Group & Organization
Management 45(1) task contexts, a wide variety of content must be reflected in the
team’s interaction patterns (Ramos-Villagrasa et al., 2012). Hence, team interaction
patterns that are more varied (i.e., more heterogeneous) might have an impact on how
well the team can anticipate a complex task context. Whereas nonroutine situations
require continuous monitoring of complex systems and quick adaption to novel situations
(e.g., Waller, Gupta, & Giambatista, 2004), routine team tasks require more conventional
forms of interaction with lower variety in their content

Teams in nonroutine task environments tend to be confronted with new and changing
task elements. To perform well, these teams are required to alter or modify their
knowledge or information frequently (Chen, Thomas, & Wallace, 2005). Thus, knowledge-
intensive team tasks seem to require continuous exchange, sharing, and interpretation of
complex information among team members (Kozlowski & Bell, 2013). In such contexts, in
which continuous sharing of member expertise and coordination is important, leaders and
followers exchange ideas and develop a shared understanding of their changing task
environment (Lei et al., 2016). Kanki, Palmer, and Veinott (1991) found that swift-starting
teams, which were constantly facing unpredictable, challenging, and new situations, were
more effective when they showed more participative interaction patterns.

Conclusion:
We took a CAS approach to better understand how real-life interaction patterns within
teams are associated with team effectiveness in different task contexts. As hypothesized,
when a large number of recurring team interaction patterns are present, this is negatively
related to team effectiveness, through limited team information sharing. Instead, the
more teams engage in participative patterns of interaction, the more they engage in
information sharing, which, in turn, is associated with higher levels of team effectiveness.
Knowledge-intensive teams, in particular, are advised to avoid frequently recurring
patterns of team interaction. Teams working on routine tasks can be less concerned with
recurring patterns of interaction, because their work requires less information sharing.
Nonetheless, both types of teams, their leaders, members, and coaches should learn how
to reduce recurring team interaction patterns and, instead, promote participative or
collaborative patterns of team interaction. Given that the world is increasingly affected by
the outcomes of knowledge-intensive teams, and nonlinear research methods are
progressively available, we suggest that future research on work teams consider the use of
more video-based CAS investigations to complement traditional methods.

- Workgroup 5:
 Smit et al. Chapter 11
 Meetings as a facilitator of multiteam system functioning

The case of the Mars Climate Orbiter showcases the crucial role that meetings – or lack
thereof – can potentially serve both within and across teams that must work together
interdependently to achieve grand challenges such as spaceflight. Often such multiteam
systems (MTSs) appear in complex, ambiguous, urgent, and multifaceted task contexts
(Shuffler & Carter, 2018). MTSs are often put together to handle “grand challenges,” or
large world issues that are not easily solved by a single team (DeChurch & Carter, 2014).

The structure of MTSs and the contexts in which they are found require effective and
efficient communication within and between teams to achieve overarching, higher order
goals beyond a single individual or team’s capabilities

The science of meetings is rapidly advancing, given that meetings can serve a wide range
of purposes and are a daily occurrence in most organizations

MTSs are best defined as:

 “two or more teams that interface directly and interdependently in response to
environmental contingencies toward the accomplishment of collective goals”
(Mathieu et al., 2001, p. 289).
 MTSs can be defined by three sets of attributes: compositional – demographic
and relative characteristics of component teams; linkage – what connects
component teams and distinguishes MTSs, and developmental – characteristics
relating to developmental patterns and dynamics.
 MTSs appear in task contexts that are ambiguous, dynamic, multifaceted, and
demand urgency.
 Characteristics of MTSs such as specialization and flexibility allow for difficult
goals to be achieved in contexts where more traditional teams of experts might
not be enough

Challenges MTS: We next briefly review each of these challenges to provide key contextual
detail needed for understanding how they may impact or be impacted by meetings.:
 Differentiation among component teams
 Countervailing forces
 Competing/conflicting goals
 Boundary spanning

Given the complexities of MTSs, meetings can serve as a critical opportunity to:
1. provide a structured opportunity to share and make sense of information
2. create and recreate effective structures
3. reinforce shared goals and identity
4. learn from one another and develop as a dynamic system.

Meetings can serve as a critical opportunity for clarifying, reducing complexities, and
ensuring the right information is being shared and interpreted. Interactions between and
information shared among teams through meetings is an essential part of MTSs, as the
breakdown of these systems happens more often because of issues between teams than
within teams (DeChurch et al., 2011).
Information sharing is especially important among complex MTSs, such as those that are
cross-boundary. Unique challenges come along with cross-boundary MTSs because their
component teams span across multiple organizations, which leads to greater task
complexity
Accordingly, even though it may seem that everyone in a MTS should attend meetings,
increasing the number of attendees may actually decrease meeting quality. Although
MTSs in their nature are subgroups of a larger group, meetings must be carefully
constructed such that only essential personnel attend, in order to lessen the likelihood of
a poor quality meeting. In terms of diverse MTSs, such as cross-boundary MTSs, meetings
can help overcome potentially damaging differences among teams, such as differences in
procedure, communication, language, and psychological norms (Shuffler et al., 2015).

The two overarching dimensions that can influence this structured flexibility are:
 differentiation and
 dynamism.
 As previously described, at any given point in a MTS’s lifespan,
differentiation can be used to describe the degree of separation and
difference among the component teams, while dynamism is the instability
and variability of the system over time (Luciano et al., 2015).

As previously discussed, a major challenge of MTSs is keeping the long term, more distal
goals and overarching goal structure in sight for the whole system.
The distal goals of MTSs are complex, removed in time and ambiguous, so they are broken
down into more manageable, proximal subgoals that can subsequently be assigned to
specific component teams based on their expertise. While the achievement of proximal
goals is necessary for the achievement of the overarching MTS goal, the achievement of
these proximal goals does not always ensure the achievement of the superordinate goal.
Meetings can be a reminder of distal goals and their relation to the more proximal goals,
as they provide both the informal and formal opportunities needed for teams to connect
with one another.

MTSs are dynamic because of the specialized component teams that allow the system to
run properly
Although MTSs have stable structures composed of leaders, members, processes, and
goals, they are dynamic by nature. This dynamism leads to teams changing, coming, and
going over time, which requires the members of MTSs to be adaptable to uncertain
situations (Luciano et al., 2015). To be optimally effective in such a dynamic environment,
MTS learning is crucial.
When learning transpires, component teams get a better idea of what does and does not
work in their current MTS and what is required to achieve superordinate goals

Considerations regarding compositional attributes:

 MTS size: the numbers of component teams (the total MTS size)
 MTS diversity: boundary status and membership, org diversity, proportional
membership, functional diversity
 Geographic dispersion: the extent to which component teams are distributed
across space

Considerations regarding linkage attributes:

 Interdependence
 Hierarchy/power
 Communication structure and modality (communication networks and
communication modalities)
Considerations regarding developmental attributes:
 Genesis and direction of MTS development (genesis and direction of
development)
 Linkage constancy over time

Summary:
Realistically, it is unlikely that MTSs will ever achieve a ‘perfect’ state given the
countervailing, differentiating, and dynamic forces that they face in practice. However,
there are certainly areas that can be addressed and improved, particularly when it comes
to meetings. Accordingly, instead of trying to “fix” MTSs so that they operate without
error, the considerations we have offered here are focused on seeking approaches for
balancing individual, team, and system demands in such a way as to maximize functioning
across these levels while minimizing dysfunction. By identifying key considerations
regarding the compositional, linkage, and dynamic developmental attributes of MTSs,
researchers and practitioners can better ensure that meetings are designed appropriately
to maximize their value at multiple levels.

Conclusion:
Meetings are often overlooked as communication tools, yet they are likely essential to
successful MTS functioning over time. As we have suggested throughout this chapter, the
existing science of meetings appears to indicate that meetings may be one of the most
critical connecting points for ensuring long term MTS 248 JORDAN G. SMITH ET AL.
success, but only when they are well-designed, well-timed, and involving the right teams
and individuals. In such complex systems as MTSs, meetings can play a critical role in
relaying information, sensemaking, and coordination, as well as in developing and
maintaining system and team level identification. While we have offered several
considerations in terms of designing and implementing MTS meetings, we also have
identified just as many, if not more, more avenues for future research exploration and
theoretical advancement. There is much to be learned and gained by more rigorous study
of MTS meetings “in the wild” especially, but we hope that the recommendations offered
to date from this integration of MTS and meetings sciences can serve to advance learning,
leveraging the costly experiences of MTSs in the past to advance future MTS science and
practice.

 Shuffler, 2018
 Teamwork situated in Multiteam Systems
 : key lessons learned and future opportunities

Key lessons learned derived from research on teamwork in MTS:

1. Lesson 1. MTSs often appear in important task contexts that are ambiguous,
multifaceted, dynamic, and demand a sense of urgency
2. Lesson 2. MTS structures provide the specialization, flexibility, and rapid
integration of member contributions needed to tackle important problems in
complex task contexts.
3. Lesson 3. The way we think about teamwork phenomena must shift when moving
from “teamwork within a team” to “teamwork in an MTS.”
4. Lesson 4. Even with shared goals, features of MTSs and their embedding contexts
 can create barriers for collaboration across teams.
5. Lesson 5. Incorporating between-team elements as part of team training can
improve both team and MTS performance.
6. Lesson 6. Attending to MTS structures and work design is an important part of
managing the coordination needed for effective MTS functioning.
7. Lesson 7. Leadership influence is a powerful process for MTSs that must be
integrated and managed across the system to maximize its benefits.

MTSs contain at least two distinct teams, each of which has its own attributes, processes,
states, and team goals (Campbell, 1958; Hollenbeck, Beersma, & Schouten, 2012; Salas,
Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992). Additionally, all MTS component teams are
part of a larger interdependent system with system-level attributes, processes, states, and
overarching goals.

 This figure represents an organizing framework of key components

contributing to multiteam system effectiveness and overarching lessons
learned related to these components.

(lesson 1) We identified at least four key features of the complex task environments in
which MTSs are often leveraged (Lesson 1).
1. First, complex task environments are by their nature ambiguous; that is, there may
not necessarily be a “right” way to address a given challenge or task or even any
clarity as to what might be a definitively wrong way to address the task
(Thompson, 1967)
2. Second, complex environments are multifaceted, and multiple layers may need to
be unraveled in order to understand how to best address the problem at hand
(Baccarini, 1996). Indeed, “complexity” is often used to refer to systems made up
of many varied, interrelated parts.
3. Third, complex environments are inherently dynamic, in that they are highly likely
to experience flux or change on a regular basis (Luciano, DeChurch, & Mathieu,
 2015).
4. Fourth, complex environments that are well-suited to MTS structures tend to have
a sense of urgency or time sensitivity, in that goals need to be achieved within a
particular duration (DeChurch & Zaccaro, 2010; Standifer, 2012). This sense of
urgency may be short- and/or longlasting

(lesson 2)Our second lesson highlights two inherent benefits of organizing work into MTS
structures—specialization and flexibility.
In summary, we find that MTS structures—with their capacity to accomplish superordinate
goals through both specialization as well as flexible and iterative problem solving across
teams—are well suited to complex task environments that are ambiguous, multifaceted,
dynamic, and time sensitive

(lesson 3) In summary, the foundation of MTS collaboration is teamwork—the affective

(e.g., trust, cohesion) and cognitive (e.g., shared mental models) psychological states and
behavioral processes (e.g., coordination, leadership) that have proven necessary for team
performance are also relevant in MTS contexts. However, we find that the nature of the
teamwork processes and states that are most critical to MTS effectiveness often shifts
when moving from teams to MTSs, with more complex, and sometimes countervailing,
relationships arising

(lesson 4) a key paradox of multiteam collaboration is that many of the reasons why
multiple teams are needed to tackle large complex problems, such as their diverse skill
sets, resources, and perspectives, can also create real and/or psychological divides
between the teams that constrain collaboration between teams (Luciano et al., 2015).

(lesson 5) Overall, the use of team training in an expanded form is a critical intervention
for reducing MTS barriers and facilitating functioning, but only if it accounts for the MTS
contextual features that come with working across multiple, distinct teams.

(lesson 6) Research on team effectiveness suggests that team leaders need to “manage
the process” in teams (Thompson, 2017), meaning that they should leverage coordination
control mechanisms (e.g., routines, meetings, plans, schedules, rules, communications;
Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009) to structure how team members’ interact with one another.

(lesson 7) MTS research has consistently demonstrated that leadership is a crucial force in
MTS contexts, in that leadership helps coordination, direct, and motivate people to
achieve superordinate goals (Carter & DeChurch, 2014)

Opportunities to advance the science and practice of MTS effectiveness:

1. Pay better attention to where MTSs ‘’live and operate’’
2. Clarify conditions and core competencies that facilitate MTS functioning
3. Focus more intentionally on how to best measure teamwork dynamics in MTSs,
particularly in terms of leveraging technology
4. Use MTSs to understand MTSs – engage more interdisciplinary perspectives in
thinking, researching and living in MTSs

Conclusion:
Through this review, we have delineated the current state and future of MTS research in
the form of seven lessons learned and four opportunities to advance the science and
practice of MTS functioning. When goals are complex, with both proximal and distal
elements, relying on a single team is not always appropriate (DeChurch & Zaccaro, 2010).
Instead, through the well-coordinated efforts of multiple teams, complex goals can be
broken down into manageable pieces of a larger puzzle. Leveraging a holistic approach to
improving MTSs combining expanded team training, process control mechanisms, and
leadership can help ensure MTS component teams shared a sense of purpose and
coordinate their actions appropriately in support of superordinate goals. Moreover, the
overarching potential to achieve outcomes vital to societal functioning means that MTSs
represent a critical embedding context for teamwork and collaboration now and in the
future.

- Workgroup 6:
 Oerlemans, Peeters & Schaufeli, 2009
 Ethnic diversity at work: an overview of theories and research
 both groups’’

Four different types of outcome variables:

1. Performance
2. Ethnic diversity
3. Behavioral
4. Affective

1. Integration-and-learning
2. Access-and-legitimacy
3. Discrimination-and-fairness

Conclusion:
The specific vision, goals, and actions that need to be developed with respect to ethnic
diversity are unique for each org and depend on the specific context of the org. ethnically
homogeneous workgroups may first want to focus on diversity goals such as the
recruitment and inclusion of ethnically diverse personnel, while orgs that already have an
ethnically diverse workforce may want to identify the consequences of ethnic diversity on
important organizational outcomes. Literature on diversity policies, management, and
initiatives suggests that a multicultural approach and an integration-and-learning
perspective on diversity may be most beneficial for orgs.