Complex events, and chaotic developments and trends in our modern world are confronting business leaders with a compelling mandate for change of unprecedented proportions. And not just any old change will do. Neither tweaks, nor modifications, nor adjustments are sufficient. Incremental alterations no matter how "major" we may claim them to be, are just not enough. In this world of turbulence and flux, no change short of profound transformation will suffice. It seems certain that the "new realities" of chaos, complexity, and discontinuous change are here to stay.

Globalization, fierce competition, the remarkably diverse workforce, the continuing explosion of information and technology, economic and social upheaval are only a few of a plethora of signals from the marketplace we must begin to heed. The message is clear: If survival is the aim, change is the game---change not only in how our work gets done, but in how we think about our work, our enterprises, ourselves and our lives.

So far, our track record in managing the new realities is discouraging at best. The annual list of America 's top performing corporations serves as a discomfiting indicator. One after the other, companies that for years occupied top positions on the rolls of the Fortune 500 now find themselves suddenly sliding into the oblivion of bankruptcies, LBOs, and unfriendly take-overs. Every year increasing numbers of the world's most esteemed corporate giants are inexplicably outperformed by faster and fleeter competitors who are themselves overtaken in short order.

Of course, it's not from lack of trying or a deficiency in our desire to attain and sustain "excellence" for our businesses. Throughout the Western world, the dissemination of advice on how to resolve our business woes has become a billion dollar packaged goods industry. Everyone it seems desires to create and work in sustainable, vital organizations capable of superior performance and resilience in a global marketplace marked by increasing turbulence, flux and fierce competition. However, few appear to have the will to do what it takes in order to attain and sustain a level of performance that is nothing less than World Class as defined in Fig. 1. As the saying goes, everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die!

Q: So, what's behind our failure of will to change in profound ways?

A: A worldview so deeply entrenched in our psyches that most of us don't even know we have it!

Virtually all of Western society has been schooled in a way of thinking and doing known in the world of enterprise as "scientific management." The "Father" of this ubiquitous doctrine was one Frederick Winslow Taylor, a 19th century American industrial engineer. Taylor was extraordinarily successful in codifying classical physics, the predominant explanation of reality crafted by the greatest scientific minds of the Renaissance, into the managerial worldview that continues to prevail to this very day. The central most aspect of the scientific foundation upon which Taylor built his theory of management was a metaphor popularized by the 17th century French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes who looked at his world as a "clockwork universe." Taylor, as devout a Cartesian as the best of his contemporaries, thus instilled in the mindsets of Western management the powerful and recalcitrant image of the machine.

The idea has become entrenched the organizations we're supposed to be managing are physical instruments of production that humans engineered in the first place and are now being "re-engineered" in a misguided effort to solve their problems. The term alone attests to the depth to which mechanistic thinking has become embedded in our corporate psyches. The robustness and endurance of the machine as the predominant metaphor of 20th century management practice is nothing short of amazing given the mounting evidence that it simply does not work.

Even as Mr. Taylor spoke, an astounding new picture of reality was being unveiled behind the closed laboratory doors of the scientific community. Mind-boggling but nevertheless irrefutable scientific evidence uncovered in the first third of the 20th century at the very same time the machine metaphor and its corollary habit of viewing the enterprise as an instrument of production was taking hold in the industrial world had shattered beyond repair the theoretical underpinnings of our "scientific" managerial practices. It turns out that the universe is not much of a clockwork after all. Management does itself a great disservice by continuing to cling to the faulty and dangerously inaccurate illusion of the machine.

Let's face the facts: The "scientific management" we have come to know and love; the one predicated on an antiquated world view now nearly 500 years old, has not been borne out by the evidence. Today a host of emerging and merging branches of modern science are generating a stunning new conceptualization of reality. The startling findings of quantum physicists, molecular bio-geneticists, particle scientists, and systems theorists are rapidly formulating the conceptual foundation to under-gird a powerful new science of organization and management.

Michael Crichton's bestseller and Stephen Speilberg's blockbuster hit have introduced something called "Chaos Theory" into the lexicon of the mainstream albeit unintentionally. In so doing, they have put an easy-to-remember label on the theoretical foundation for the "New" Scientific Management. Just about every citizen of the modern organization can identify with the concept of "chaos" without a moment's hesitation because chaos has become part and parcel of our daily experience.

Chaos proves that the Universe is inherently chaotic and intrinsically orderly at the same time . This recognition of the intertwining of order and chaos is a troubling one indeed for those who refuse to relinquish the Cartesian view of reality. That view asserts that reality consists of two separate and independent categories of phenomena---things that are orderly and things that are disorderly or random. To Cartesians and practitioners of Taylorian principles, order is regarded as "good" while its "bad" corollary is to be made subject to our control. What Chaos Theory reveals to us is that the chaos of which we complain---especially the "in-your-face" variety that is particularly unpleasant---is the counter-invention of control. Chaos is of our own making yet we don't even know it!

Once we are able to grasp the most central axiom of Chaos Theory---the inseparability of order and chaos---the Universe and therefore, that particular corner of the Universe we know as the "organization," become amazingly comprehensible. When we don't "get it" however, the five most basic properties of reality that will be introduced below may seem nonsensical. Therefore, before preceding, the reader is advised to set aside if only temporarily your ordinary conceptualizations of reality.

Ever since the 17th century when Sir Isaac Newton became its first and greatest practitioner, physics has been regarded as the science of the physical world. Today as a result of the discoveries of 20th century explorers, it has been transformed into the science of consciousness. In the 1950s, a physicist named Heisenberg developed a precise mathematical formula known as the "Uncertainty Principle." The significance of this equation was profound: it called into question the foundation of Newton 's classical physics---the very existence of matter.

Recognizing that it is impossible for the mind to contain a physical object but only a perception of it, what we perceive as a "thing" existing independently "out there," is really nothing more than a fabrication of our minds "in here." It follows that since what is perceived "out there" is in fact created "in here," there is no "out there," no distinct and separate reality with which to be concerned. The chaos sciences have shown to be untrue, the classical dichotomy between the human consciousness and the Universe.

If the Universe is indeed a creation of our minds, it follows that our organizations as microcosms of the Universe, are also cognitive constructs that abide in our consciousness and in fact, are brought into being through our active participation in the primary activity of the consciousness---thinking. The implications of the property of consciousness for designing and changing our enterprises are mind-boggling, indeed. Chaos Theory shows us changing one's mind, changing the organization's mind, is the paramount act of organizational change.

Well known to scientific historians are the Copenhagen Debates of the 1920s between the eminent physicists, Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein. At issue was the startling discovery that two particles separated by vast distances were able to "communicate" with each other instantaneously and thus behave in a coherent manner. Einstein claimed this could simply not be since it would require that information was transmitted at a rate faster than the speed of light---an impossibility since light's speed had been proven as a constant limit by his own acclaimed Theories of Relativity. Yet Bohr eventually prevailed in the dialectic when he pointed out an error in the great physicist's thinking: In order for instantaneous communication between the two particles to be impossible, Einstein had to assume that the duo were separate. Bohr successfully contended and proved that the two were really one: He discovered the property of connectivity.

Chaos scientists have since come to recognize the essential oneness of the Universe. Even though reality seems to present itself to our consciousness as "things," it is in fact an unbroken, all-encompassing, indivisible whole in which every element derives its meaning from its relationships to the whole. This notion of the "oneness" of the Universe applies with equal importance to the ways in which we design our organizations. The most intelligent design strategy we can execute is to build a dynamical network of sufficiently dense connections between people and more importantly, between their consciousnesses. Every time we erect a barrier between people whether that be a department, a title, or a division, we diminish the strength and quality of whole.

Although most people believe they would recognize this particular feature of reality when they saw it, the third "gift" of Chaos Theory points out that there are really two "types" of complexity: One that we're familiar with due to our indoctrination in the mechanistic worldview, and one that we're mostly oblivious to as a result of the very the same way of viewing the world. When a phenomenon involves a large number of variables, we recognize that it is marked by detail complexity . Only a fool would argue that their organization is but a simple construction consisting of a handful of "parts." But detail complexity is not all there is to the modern enterprise or to the Universe of which it is part.

There is another kind of complexity operating behind what most of us have been trained to perceive. Chaos Theory shows that none of the profusion of factors comprising any phenomenon is ever "at rest." This is known as the condition of dynamic complexity ---the ever-present condition of movement when the multitude of variables each refuse to sit still. The notion of dynamic complexity flies in the face of the antiquated view of the 17th Scientific Revolution. Its chief spokesperson, the venerable Sir Isaac Newton, believed that one day science would succeed in identifying all of the factors present at the "beginning of the Universe." With this knowledge, the future would be known in advance. Chaos Theory rejects this claim of perfect predictability, a central promise of classical physics, by demonstrating that:

• It is impossible even in theory, to know all of the initial conditions that give rise to a phenomenon.
• Even if they could be known, this "knowledge" would become useless in the very next instance as a result of the dynamism inherent in their connections.

Consider the logical implications of complexity for the practice of management in the kaleidoscopic environment we call the marketplace. At the very best, our "knowledge" of the current details and the dynamics of their interactions is an approximation. Of course, some approximations are more informed then others but in the final analysis, they're all little more than guestimates. It follows that any future "predicted" on the basis of our knowledge, is a guestimate as well. The truth is that the future is unpredictable, unknowable and in fact, undetermined. Yet we remain mesmerized by the Newtonian promise of certainty that has taught us to do nothing until we are absolutely certain we know what will happen in detail if we do anything. And when we finally do act, we select our actions as if we could foresee their outcome. This familiar behavioral pattern, known for short as "strategic planning" is a practice endemic throughout Western business and industry. After all, what is strategic planning but the collection and analysis of data about current conditions to produce a detailed picture of the future that is certain to lie ahead and a schedule of actions that is certain to lead us there?

Through centuries of "instruction" in the Cartesian worldview, management has come to worship the qualities of stability, predictability, certainty, order and, above all control. The fact that these traits do not characterize the real world we're supposed to be managing in is ignored. The desire to assert control over our chaotic environments is so strong that it is now extremely difficult for us to see that the path of increasing dynamical complexity will lead us to the edge of chaos and subsequently, to the inevitable dissipation of the system.

Every system known to 20th century scientists is a dissipative structure. That is, each is subject to limits to its continued growth. The limits to growth are caused by the fact that over time, the conditions that once made growth possible change because those conditions are as has been shown, dynamically complex. In the mind of the typical Western thinker, the term itself is likely to conjure up the anxiety-generating image of the sudden, uncontrollable collapse, disintegration, and destruction of something cherished e.g., the company we spent our careers building. With sympathy, the author wishes to offer a word of reassurance: The word is "choice." Even though dissipation is an essential property of every system including our enterprises, Chaos Theory tells us that how a particular system dissipates is a choice. As indicated in Fig. 2, the archetypal path through the field of complexity leads to the "edge" of chaos where the system is confronted with the alternatives of:

• Leaping to a higher level of complexity by changing in a profound way.
• Falling apart by refusal to let go of the status quo.

The Law of Conservation, the most fundamental tenet of quantum physics, is based on irrefutable evidence that energy cannot be destroyed. The dissipation of a system (Fig. 3), then, is not the destruction of its energy but only of its mass: Mass is in effect only a temporary condensation of energy---a gift of consciousness. So when an organizational proponent of Chaos Theory comments on the dissipation of an enterprise, what they are saying is that the energy that had heretofore been "locked up" in the form of an organization, has simply "escaped" back into the Universe where it is available for "recapture" to be reconfigured in a new and more complex form. The indestructible energy that once took the familiar shape of our company, is not partial: If the system does not choose to reshape it, it will be absorbed elsewhere in the environment, perhaps by a competitor. We experience this occurrence with regularity whenever we witness a bankruptcy, a leveraged buy-out, or the "downsizing" of a once great corporation.

The good news of dissipation is that we have a choice. The bad news is that we've been blinded to our options by the mindset of the old science. And so, in our blindness, we end up suffering again and again the very same consequences we have struggled so hard to avoid---the "death" of our organizations. The fact remains that no enterprise, no matter how advanced its technology, how demanding its marketplace, how brilliant its leadership, or how efficient its workforce, can circumvent the "edge of chaos" where we are confronted by a the most critical choice we'll ever make---either change or die!. I don't know about you, but the prospect of complete and udder transformation even though its radical and uncertain, sounds a heck of a lot better to me than the prospect of the latter.

Studies of a multitude of systems throughout the Universe, with the single exception of the business enterprise, have failed to identify an "executive" cell or molecule that tells the other cells or molecules what to do. And yet, organizations as we know them are rife with managers, directors, bosses, and others who perform this directing function as a matter of fact. This is most peculiar since an organization, just like every other system in the Universe, is unequivocally emergent. The property of emergence that is, the process of continuous ascension to higher and higher orders of complexity, is founded on a threesome of inherent capacities.

Chaos Science demonstrates that all systems are by their nature:

• Self-organizing: capable of rising to increasingly higher levels of complexity and order all by themselves .
  
• Self-replicating: capable of evolving through a morphogenic or pattern-following process all by themselves .
  
• Self-referencing: capable of developing in reference to a deeply embedded, implicit self-knowledge all by themselves .

The point here is that given these wondrous life-sustaining capabilities, not only does no system need a "top manager" molecule, the interference of such is potentially lethal to the system. Once again the Cartesian machine metaphor comes into play corrupting our thinking about the organizations we're trying so desperately to manage and sustain. Our mechanistic mindset has us distrusting the intrinsic capacity of the enterprise to emerge on its own without our continuous intrusion. After all we reason, somebody has got to keep winding the clockwork if it's going to continue ticking away. The primary lessons to be learned from this final property of chaotic systems are threefold: First, if you want your organization to soar to a higher level of performance, get the heck out of its way! Secondly, if you crave some degree of assurance about the form to which your enterprise will evolve, learn to grasp the pattern that exists right now! And thirdly, if you feel you must do something as your business does its emergence thing, then focus your efforts on embedding deep purpose in the core of your consciousness.

By first grasping the meaning and interrelatedness of the network of five system properties, we are led to a key maxim of organizational architecture: every organization is perfectly designed to produce the results that it does . It's as simple as that. No enterprise can be expected to deliver greater or more prodigious outcomes than its architecture is capable of bearing. Similarly, no common automobile regardless of how much it has been "souped up," is capable of competing in America 's Indianapolis 500 or France 's Grand Prix. In spite of the enormous expenditures made over the years in a effort to "re-engineer" our business engines and "realign" our corporate chassis, world class performance will continue to elude us. The reason is simple: Our enterprises cannot compete in the global road race because they have has not been designed to do so.

So then, how do we actually translate Chaos into practice? How do we realize an enterprise capable of sustained performance in a turbulent, ever- in-flux global marketplace? How can theoretical constructs be made both actionable and actual in the "real" world? Even though there is no "recipe" for designing world class architectures befitting a Universe in which chaos and order are magically intertwined, these "how" questions are to be expected from those new to the exquisite logic and self-consistency of this powerful new view of reality. After all, it took more than 3 centuries to become entrenched in the mechanistic mindset of Descartes, Newton , and later Frederick Taylor. The desire for a certain, sequential plan of action around which to order the future is but a remnant of the mechanistic thinking we must shed. In the meantime, we must learn to be patient with ourselves as we continue to develop and embed cognitive constructs to guide our actions and practices.

One way to begin the design process, an avenue that has produce remarkable success for a handful of companies with whom the author has had the pleasure of accompanying on their journeys to the edge of chaos, is with a working definition of organizational architecture as something much richer and more fluid than the "org chart" that tends to come to mind. Organizations can be imagined as dynamical multi- faceted creations sporting dozens of dimensions at least ten of which should be considered by its designer listed in Fig. 4.

The creative process for designing a world class enterprise most simply put requires the organizational architect to begin with a clean mental slate---cleared of everything known about how organizations "should be" with the exception of the five properties of a chaotic system. These will serve as governing ideas to guide the designer in generating a free-flow of images addressing each of the core dimensions. This generative exercise of the imagination has not yet failed to produce a compelling portrait of a highly desirous enterprise entitled to the status accorded a superior world class performer.

For those readers who can't believe it until they see it, Fig. 5 is a "real life" example of the product of such a powerful exercise in envisioning a sustainable world class organization. It has been shared through the generosity of the Design Team of an $180 million U.S. commercial construction company who entered the cocoon of their own transformation in 1992 and are now emerging as a stunning "Monarch" in their industry. For best results, it should be examined with an open mind and a bit of imagination. However, as the Design Team mused when they turned it over for inclusion in this article, in order to really "get it, you had to be there!"

© Laurie A Fitzgerald, 1994

Revised from original version published in the November 1994 edition of Best Practice Journal. Bedford , England : IFS International Ltd. It may be reproduced without permission for non-commercial purposes only. For all other uses, click here to contact the author.