Managing The Entropic Organisation
MONOGRAPH NUMBER 1. 1997
(MANAGEMENT EDUCATION PAPERS)
David John Ivers
A paper by:
David Ivers.DipT., BEd., GradDipEd(Rel.Ed)., MEdAdmin., MCCEAM., MACE., AFAIM.
§ MANAGEMENT EDUCATION PAPERS
This Management Education Paper is a published work
which aims to present the findings of occasional
independent research into issues that may affect or
impinge upon good management, preferably in the
Australian context. The papers are subjected to critical
review by experienced administrators and people with
technical expertise, prior to publication. In this sense,
each title in the Management Education Papers series is
refereed. It is hoped that through the occasional
publication of monographs, the findings may be used by
managers to improve their organisation and the working
standards for those engaged by such organisations.
This paper was published in accordance with the
Copyright Act 1968 (Commonwealth of Australia). A legal
deposit of this paper has been made with the National
Library of Australia and with the relevant State Libraries.
Managing the Entropic Organisation ISBN 0 9587137 0 7
Original Paper
©Copyright 1997 David John Ivers, De La Salle Brothers Marrickville NSW. 2204.
This Blog / PDF / eBook Version
©Copyright 2013. David John Ivers | @edu_ivers
Copyright is held by the author. The views expressed in
this paper are the views of the author based upon
independent research and may not be those of the De La
Salle Brothers, either as an organisation or individually.
Every effort has been made to identify and reference all
sources used in this paper. This paper may not be sold by
any party, other than the author. Reproduction is
permitted for study purposes only, in accordance with the
relevant sections of the Copyright Act 1968
(Commonwealth of Australia). Under such circumstances,
this work is to be properly cited and due credit given to its
author. Where reproduction is sought for purposes other
than study, permission must be gained from the author.
Contact can be made through: @edu_ivers
If you found this paper useful, then you may like to check
your library catalogue for other titles in the series.
Post Production Note: The author is no longer a member
of the De La Salle Brothers but was a member at the time
of publication and graciously acknowledges their
assistance at that time.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank and acknowledge the
role that the following people played in the critical
review of this paper.
Mr. Ranald Cross
Mr. Brad Elliott
Mrs. Suzanne Gruchot
Mr. Joseph Haddad
Mr. Lenard John Ivers
Mr. Stephen Manning
Mr. John Murphy
Mr. Mark Pauschmann
Through their willingness to share their expertise and
experience by critically reviewing this paper on a
voluntary basis, they have made an invaluable
contribution to existing knowledge, which is always
appreciated.
ABSTRACT.
On the surface, it may seem insignificant to many
managers and administrators, but there has been a not
so quiet revolution occurring in Science, specifically in the
area of Physics. Currently it goes under several names
including Cosmology or 'The New Physics'.
Whatever label people attach to it, one thing is certain.
The New Physics has implications for the Administration
and good Management of organisations. Indeed,
managers may in fact be ignoring these new
developments at their own peril and that of their
organisation. This paper focuses on the concept of
'entropy' and applies it to organisations generally, and
system theory specifically. Central to the paper is the
notion that the energy that generates chaos or 'entropy'
can be harnessed into a creative and life-giving force for
any organisation through the use of effective leadership
and communication techniques.
Preamble.
On the surface, it may seem insignificant to many managers
and administrators, but there has been a not so quiet
revolution occurring in Science, specifically the area of
Physics. Currently it goes under several names including
Cosmology or 'The New Physics'. Whatever label people
attach to it, one thing is certain. The New Physics has
implications for the administration and good management of
organisations. Indeed, managers may in fact be ignoring
these new developments at their own peril and that of their
organisation.
Background.
In truth, the revolution probably began with Albert Einstein
and in particular his 'Theory of Relativity'. Work in this area
has of late been taken up by a number of eminent scientists
around the world including: Professor Stephen Hawking
(Physicist-Cambridge University); Professor Roger Penrose
(Mathematician & Physicist-Oxford University); Professor
Paul Davies (Physicist & Natural Philosopher-University of
Adelaide); Emeritus Professor Charles Birch (Biologist-
University of Sydney). The basic thesis appears to be one of
chaos and order. Is the universe chaotic or is there an order
to it and if so, what is it? What a number of these scientists
claim is that the Universe and thus the world, is chaotic, yet
there maybe some order to the chaos or even within the
chaos. The junction at which this becomes obvious is when
the notion of Space, Matter and Time, is dealt with in a
systematic manner by such able scholars. It is not the
intention of this article to explore new scientific theories, nor
to support one scholar over another. Rather, this article
intends to explore, for the betterment of management in this
country, the implications that such research has for
managers.
Introduction.
Is the organisational world chaotic? Does the daily grind of
work occur on a semi - ordered, semi - chaotic basis? Does
the fact that managers often have on their desk, a pad which
reads in big bold print "THINGS TO DO" or "PLAN YOUR
DAY", suggest something of the chaotic world of
management and organisations in general? Time
management, in all likelihood, appears to be a headache for
most managers. After all, organisations exist in the physical
world and thus must be subject to the laws of the physical
world and so in turn, the laws of Physics. Having had an
interest in the New Physics for some time, this writer began
to wonder whether or not the discoveries by Science, about
Chaos and Order, are in fact replicated, not just in the vast
array of paperwork that managers face each day, but perhaps
in the day itself. On this question the written works of
Professor Paul Davies was consulted, for what became a
remarkable answer.
Entropy.
"One measure of the remorseless rise of chaos uses a
quantity called 'entropy,' which is defined to be, roughly
speaking, the degree of disorder in a system. The second law
(of thermodynamics) then states that in a closed system the
total entropy can never decrease; at best it remains the
same. Almost all natural changes tend to increase the
entropy, and we see the second law at work all around us in
nature."(1) From the vantage point of an interested observer,
there would seem to be a number of implications to which this
statement by Davies must give rise. If Science is so certain of
this chaos in the physical and natural world, and if it can be
seen within systems, then it must ipso facto be plausible, if
not evident in systems theory as it is applied to organisations.
It is no longer sufficient for managers to sit back and think
that this is not applicable to them, or conversely, that this is
merely the view of one scientist. In fact, Davies is merely
asserting a law of science. By definition, a law in science is
something proven, whilst a theory is something less tangible,
it has merit but is yet to be proven.
What are the Implications?
If the law as stated by Davies is obvious in a closed system,
yet is also obvious in nature, then it must be equally
applicable to the natural system and thus one supposes to an
open system. By virtue that it is a logically deduced and
proven law of Physics, one must also assume that it is a
feature of the rational system, as they are applied to
organisations. In short, if a manager were to take any of the
major system theories of organisations, one would have to be
led, even on purely elementary grounds, to deduce that
chaos is a very real part of that system. It is perhaps
mischievous to simply discount it as something 'political'
since it is a real feature (according to Science) of the physical
world in which we live. The upshot of all of this is very simple.
If the 'New Physics' is correct (and we really have no reason
to say that it is not), then the notion of chaos, even if ordered,
must start to question managers at a very fundamental level.
Is there a need to redefine the modern manager, their work
and their role within organisations? Are managers across the
spectrum (junior, middle, senior) fundamentally the people
who manage chaos for an organisation? Is the notion of
restructuring, downsizing and the like, actually a first hand
example of 'entropy' being increased within a system for
some perceived gain? If such a gain is to reduce the
disordered way in which things are done within an
organisation, then downsizing may in fact worsen the
situation if the organisation has already found its optimum
level of 'entropy'!
The notion of balance is crucial here. Environmental Science
informs us that in nature keeping the right balance is
important. Logic would dictate that if something is decreased,
something else must increase. Consequently, deliberate
intervention to reduce the level of disorder within any part of
an organisation, must, by the very act of restructuring, lead to
an overall increase of 'entropy' and thus ambiguity to the
organisation as a whole. In particular, this would be most
noticeable in an organisation in which 'entropy' was at an
optimum level and ambiguity was in a healthy balance with
other systems (hidden or otherwise) throughout the
organisation. To envision the notion of 'entropy' graphically
within an open system, one must first conceptualise two
polarised points on a line, chaos and order. As a line is
mathematically made up of a series of continuous points in
both directions, any one of these points along the line can be
the point of entropy.
Diagram 1: Entropy as a degree of measure of chaos & order
Infinite Order <----------------------------------------> Infinite Chaos
Thus, the natural balance occurs at some degree of 'entropy'
along the line. As the graphic demonstrates, 'entropy' can tend
towards chaos or order within an open system. Consequently,
to begin restructuring an organisation that is already well ordered,
so as to remove the remaining level of chaos is perhaps futile,
as some chaos must always exist. Whilst infinite (perfect)
order and chaos is represented, pragmatically, it is impossible
to achieve. Thus any restructuring will add a level of chaos to
the system, moving the point of balance toward chaos, not
order, and thus moving the degree of 'entropy' further along
the line toward infinite chaos. Even if the desired level of
order is achieved in one part of the organisation, it must
increase inversely 'entropy' as a measure of chaos at some
point on the line. Ultimately, at the end of the day, the ledger
has to balance! Mindful that 'entropy' can increase toward
chaos or decrease toward order in an open system
(it can never decrease in a closed system), there remain
some essential questions that must be asked. Are the gains
to be made via restructuring, financial or otherwise, real, or is
the cost of increasing 'entropy' to the system an expense, a
hidden expense that has never really been factored in? How
should we cost the increasing or decreasing of 'entropy' in the
system? Does the increase of 'entropy' to a system via
restructuring, increase burn out rates, absentee rates, error
rates, sick leave rates, and does it in turn decrease morale
within the organisation? If the answer to any of these questions
is maybe or yes, then perhaps we are achieving things within
our organisations at an extremely high price. There may in fact
be a better approach to the problem!
What might the alternative be?
In one sense, Paul Davies has partly answered this question.
"In a closed system the total entropy can never decrease; at
best it remains the same. Almost all natural changes tend to
increase the entropy, and we see the second law at work all
around us in nature."(2) In other words, perhaps the most
fundamental task that managers have, is to maintain the
'entropy' of a system at an optimum level, given that by its
nature it must always exist. Likewise, it would therefore follow
that where 'entropy' within an organisation is high (moving close
toward infinite chaos), the function of the manager is to reduce
the 'entropy' to an acceptable or an optimum level. By doing so,
this writer would theorise that the said organisation would notice
an increase in productivity, especially in relation to costs.
Suggested indicators of increased 'entropy' within an
organisation are fairly obvious. Increasing burn out rates,
absentee rates, error rates, sick leave rates, a decrease in
morale within the organisation, are all indicators of increasing
'entropy'. There is of course an even more fundamental
challenge.
To simply reduce the 'entropy' of an organisation, without
reference to its cause is akin to treating the symptoms rather
than the disease. It is incumbent upon managers who rightly
see this as a serious issue, one which could potentially
paralyse the organisation, to seek out the causes and to take
the appropriate action, when it is required. By doing so, the
manager then begins to demonstrate leadership qualities,
such as valuing people, envisioning the big picture for the
organisation and so on.(*)
Interestingly, Kouzes and Posner noted the role that
leadership would need to assume in a highly entropic
organisation or one experiencing a rupture in its state of
equilibrium. "In the process of transformation, people and
their organisations live with a high degree of ambiguity...As
Meg Wheatley points out in Leadership and the New Science,
the things we fear most in an organisation - fluctuations,
disturbances, imbalances' - are also the primary sources of
creativity. But how do we get from the scary, painful, and
disorienting parts of this process to the liberating,
exhilarating, and empowering parts? Fortunately, there are
some useful guidelines for crossing the chasm of change.
When confusion over ends and means abounds, leadership
is essential. Leaders (must) master change - and they (must)
master uncertainty, seizing the imperative to act."(3)(*)
How successful a manager is at this, will rely to a large extent
upon the effectiveness of communication within the
organisation and indeed the manager's own communication
skills. Good communication may require at times courage. It
must be remembered that there is a hierarchy of effective
communication techniques. Talking face to face with the
people is always the best.
This allows for nuances, voice inflections, body language, as
well as context, to be properly understood. The telephone is
the second best choice, though perhaps the more efficient. The
telephone, whilst removing the added advantage of body
language, still allows for voice inflections, tone, nuances and to
a certain extent, context.
The written word, by memo or letter, whilst still being the most
formal method, relies on the comprehension ability of the
reader and effectively removes the possibility of the receiver
determining nuances, voice inflections and may make
determining the correct context of the message even harder to
ascertain. As a result, the writer must be very specific,
complete and entirely clear about the meaning of what is
written. Communication, both personal and the techniques
employed, are essential if the manager is to enlist the goodwill
and assistance of the employees to keep the 'entropy' in
balance. In the long run, adopting an approach to maintain
'entropy' at an optimum level and then selecting an appropriate
means of communication to assist with this, can only enhance
the manager's role. In turn, it is likely to also enhance the
perception that significant others within the organisation have
of the manager. This is not to suggest that it will be easy.
One approach to this has been suggested by Kouzes and
Posner.
o Set up little experiments. In doing so, you minimise the
amount of 'entropy' added to the organisation and thus
damage control in the event of a failure becomes more
probable.
o Make it safe for others to experiment. Initiative should be
rewarded and seen for the life giving activity that it is. o
Eliminate firehosing. Don't kill initiative with catch phrases
such as: 'it's not in the budget, it may not work, what about
tradition, etc.'
o Work even with ideas that sound strange initially. If this
does not happen, a golden opportunity may pass you by, or
worse yet, people may stop offering creative solutions and
ideas that would be beneficial to the organisation.
o Honor your risk takers. All organisations need prophets to
help reduce 'entropy' to an optimum level and thus maintain
or enhance the other profits. A high staff morale can make the
manager's task much easier.
o Debrief every failure as well as every success. This is
important for the learning organisation. As much, possibly
even more, can be learnt from failure as can be learnt from
success.
o Model risk taking. If staff see their managers taking
initiative, taking the risks (even if they are well calculated
ones), then they will be encouraged to do the same.
o Encourage possibility thinking. An organisation
experiencing much ambiguity due to increasing 'entropy' and
rapid change is more likely to harness the creative energy of
the chaos by seeing the change as being rich in possibilities
and potential.
o Maximize opportunities for choice. Encourage people to
offer an alternative to their first idea, if for no other reason
than it provides a possible 'fall back' position to work from.
o Make formal clothing and titles optional. If there truly is an
urgency in your organisation overcoming high levels of
ambiguity and 'entropy', be prepared to abandon bureaucratic
ideas and literally let people roll their sleeves up and pitch in
with some help. Informality can bring order out of this type of
chaos.(4)
It is important to remember, that even self - organising and
renewable systems or modes of organisation create 'entropy'.
According to Davies, "self - organisation need not conflict with
the second law of thermodynamics: such processes always
generate 'entropy' as a by - product, so there is a price to be
paid to achieve order out of chaos."(5) Consequently, the
thoughts offered by Kouzes and Posner may be as applicable
as a monitoring technique, to a well run organisation where
'entropy' is at an optimum, as it is to an organisation surviving
with high levels of 'entropy' and ambiguity.
Conclusion.
The questions that remain are simple. Within our
organisations (which hopefully are self - organising to some
extent), how much 'entropy' is produced and how much
should be produced? Is the cost of such 'entropy' effective
when measured against the resources (including the human
and financial resources) of the organisation? For managers
the lesson from science is clear. Yet, the fears and prejudices
of key individuals may very well prevent the organisation from
taking advantage of the 'New Physics'. If this occurs, it may
be for no other reason, than the fact that it is derived from a
non - business discipline.
On this point managers need to be clear.
"Without equivocation, I guarantee that if you first focus your
efforts on matters of the highest concern and profit that attend
your position, you will set free so much more of your crew's,
and your own, initiative, power, innovation, and imagination,
all of which are inseparable from mission success. Make it
so." (Captain Jean-Luc Picard).(6)
Bibliography
* See: Gardner. John. THE TASK OF LEADERSHIP. in
Gardner. John. W. (1990). ON LEADERSHIP. New York. The
Free Press. Ch.2.
3. Kouzes. James.M., Posner. Barry. Z. (1995). THE
LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE. Jossey - Bass. San Francisco.
P.76.
* See also: Wheatley. Margaret. J. (1992). LEADERSHIP
AND THE NEW SCIENCE. Berrett - Koehler Publishers. San
Francisco. PP. 75-88.
4. Adapted from: Kouzes. James.M., Posner. Barry. Z. (1995).
THE LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE. Jossey - Bass. San
Francisco. P. 80-88 Passim.
5. Davies. Paul. (1995). ABOUT TIME: EINSTEIN'S
UNFINISHED REVOLUTION. Penguin Books. London. P.36.
6. Roberts. Wess., Ross. Bill. (1995). MAKE IT SO:
LEADERSHIP LESSONS FROM STAR TREK- THE NEXT
GENERATION. Pocket Books. New York. P. 41.
4. Roberts. Wess., Ross. Bill. (1995). MAKE IT SO:
LEADERSHIP LESSONS FROM STAR TREK- THE NEXT
GENERATION. Pocket Books. New York.
5. Wheatley. Margaret. J. (1992). LEADERSHIP AND THE
NEW SCIENCE. Berrett - Koehler Publishers. San Francisco.
All images and photos by the author, David John Ivers. Photos
have been added to the eBook / PDF version, to enhance
