Complex behavior stems from the interconnectivity, interaction, and interrelation of fundamentals with a system and among its environment and system. It involves concepts which a number of factors internet with each other in an assortment of ways. Since complexity includes interacting with a variety of agent in the system, if relations among agents working on similar task is to tight coupled, information is likely to be taken the same way by everyone and make no impact upon the system (Desouza & Hensgen, 2015).
Complex organizations can be defined as “organizations characterized by interdependencies among decision characterized by interdependencies among decisions that affect the mapping of cause-effect relations between decisions and outcomes” (Ethiraj & Levinthal, 2009, p. 10). Permitting interdependency amongst salespeople makes the organization complex. If numerous goals thwart coordination, it’s instinctive challenges are enlarged in complex organizations. The reason being, if two goals are positively uncorrelated or correlated in a single result and if this single decision by one individual is undermined by decisions of a different individual, the former salesperson effort is frustrated (Ethiraj & Levinthal, 2009).
An organizations complexity level depends on the amount of interconnections and the effects on a company. A defining attribute of complexity is control. For example, the owner of a small company usually oversees every aspect of the business from managing people, ordering stock to setting prices. Meanwhile, a CEO of a large organization often does not manage operations nor decision at the various levels of the company. Furthermore, managerial complexity rises with the complexity of business. Decisions made in complex organization take more time due to consequences from mistakes being greater. However, being complex should not prevent flexibility. A complex business should be just as quick as smaller companies in order to respond to changes in economic conditions or business.
When speaking with other members and executives about complexity, many agreed that in order to overcome the trap of high complexity the key words to keep in mind are focus, prioritize, simplify, and eliminate. Everyone and everything in a business can drive its leaders and company to more work and greater complexity. In looking at previous experiences, experiential findings have arisen as to why organization life is so complex. Most, if not all companies strive to shoot for perfection. Organizations have nonstop passion in becoming the best in class for everything they do. However, in striving for this perfection, most businesses start a complex initiative project that the are incapable of completing successfully. Further, simple steps to reach are not followed and there is minimal attention to the root cause. Management often overlooks the level of difficulty for people to be able to execute the complex solution and live it daily. More so, with the drive to work hard and loves come a desire for making things happen or getting it done. This can result in leaders of the organization having a biased action. Nonetheless, if nothing is to be done, they will often times find something to do while insisting their team gets it done.
Real problem present in organizational life
The process of innovation is often chaotic. A real problem present in organizational life is innovation with products in the company. According to Uhl-Bien, Schermerhor, & Osborn (2015), “product innovations result in the introduction of new or improved goods or services to better meet consumer needs” (p. 343). The main difficulty pertaining to product development is integration in the units needed to transfer to final implementation from the idea stage. Developments in new products often challenge existing value structures, practices and common misunderstanding s. however, many organizations find difficulty in breaking up existing item lineups in hopes that success will come of new products (Uhl-Bien et al., 2015).
Research also present results of team factors being associated with increased innovation. With extensive innovation, common myths are also presenting risk problems. The first presumption is that management does not have risk bias. Although everyone is subject to varying degrees in bias and varying ways, as issues become complex, it’s more likely there are numerous biased interpretations (Uhl-Bien et al., 2015). Another problem is the concentration of certain goals and not all of the goals. Putting an importance on single goals can mean other goals run the chance of getting neglected (Uhl-Bien et al., 2015). The regulations amount in the industry and rapid change along with the amount of replication in responsibilities, roles, and activities in the organizations also destroy value and adds complexity. More so, the occurrence of change in the structure, the change of competitor’s strategy, and the new entry rate can all have a habit of making the organization less profitable and further complex.
This leads to the specific question that will address the problem is what the impact of innovation breakthrough on the organizational environment? The theories listed below can be useful in addressing this question.
A systems theory approach mentions how the decision activities should relate to the origin of innovation for the intended result or process that defines that innovation (Moldgaziev & Resh, 2016). This approach views organizations as a social system that has to interact with the environment in order to survive (Uhl-Bien et al., 2015). The structural innovations and processes can likely originate form the ranks of top managers as they are tuned more to new developments where low level managers are oriented to slim technical problems (Daft, 1978; Moldogaziev & Resh, 2016). Thus, if innovation is not close to the locus if innovation impact, then success can be somewhat muted in comparison to innovations that stem from more situated organizational perspectives.
With the systems theory approach, organizations are dependent on their environment. This includes the suppliers providing material, customers purchasing the product, employee labor, investing from shareholders, and regulations from government. Innovation studies have been predominantly influenced by systems theory where emphasis is on the interrelation of the organization and environment (Slappendel, 1996; Moldogaziev & Resh, 2016).
Another theory that can help in addressing the question is the contingency theory. According to Burton & Obel (2015), “contingency theory and the principle that structure follows strategy all follow the common theme and there must be a fit between the environment and the organization” (p. 48). The environment creates opportunities and limits for a company’s structure and subsequently, its strategy. Increased uncertainty in the environment leads to higher organization variations in the structure in order for an organization to be innovatively efficient.
A metaphor that can apply to organization complexity is looking at the company as an organism growing and evolving over time. The organisms (or organization) is made up of cells (or teams) who collaborate in search of a bigger overall reproduction goal (or organizational purpose). If one thinks of their team as a biological being then it isn’t a stretch to believe that the team will need nutrients to grow and be ale to remove harmful waste. More so the cells (teams) needs protection from environmental toxins in order to flourish.
In conclusion, complex behavior involves concepts which a number of factors internet with each other in an assortment of ways. If numerous goals thwart coordination, it’s instinctive challenges are enlarged in complex organizations. An organizations complexity level depends on the amount of interconnections and the effects on a company and the defining attribute of complexity is control. The regulations and rapid change along with responsibilities, roles, and activities in the organizations also destroy value and adds complexity. Using the systems theory and contingency theory are two theories useful in addressing the question of innovation impacts on the organizational environment. A real problem present in organizational life is innovation with products in the company with research presenting results of team factors being associated with increased innovation. Lastly, members and executives agree that in order to overcome the trap of high complexity the key words to keep in mind are focus, prioritize, simplify, and eliminate.
- Desouza, K. C. (2015). Managing Information in Complex Organizations: Semiotics and Signals, Complexity and Chaos. London: Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.thecampuscommon.com/library/ezproxy/ticketdemocs.asp?sch=suo&turl=https://search-ebscohost-com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=977912&site=eds-live
- Ethiraj, S. K., & Levinthal, D. (2009). Hoping for A to Z While Rewarding Only A: Complex Organizations and Multiple Goals. Organization Science, 20(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0358
- Moldogaziev, T. T., & Resh, W. G. (2016). A Systems Theory Approach to Innovation Implementation: Why Organizational Location Matters. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 26(4), 677–692. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv047
- Uhl-Bien, M., Schermerhorn, J. R., Osborn, R. N. Organizational Behavior. [South University]. Retrieved from https://digitalbookshelf.southuniversity.edu/#/books/9781119033110/