Article

Complexity Theory: An Overview with Potential

Applications for the Social Sciences
John R. Turner and Rose M. Baker *
University of North Texas, 3940 N Elm St, G150, Denton, TX 76207, USA; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-940-369-7684

Received: 22 December 2018; Accepted: 10 January 2019; Published: 19 January 2019

Abstract: Systems theory has been challenged in the recent literature due to its perceived
disconnection from today’s research and practice demands. Moving away from the reductionist
frameworks and the complicated domain predominated by known unknowns and order, a call is
being made to the social sciences to begin adopting complexity theory and newer connectionist
methods that better address complexity and open social systems. Scholars and scholar-practitioners
will continue to find the need to apply complexity theory as wicked problems become more
prevalent in the social sciences. This paper differentiates between general systems theory (GST) and
complexity theory, as well as identifies advantages for the social sciences in incorporating
complexity theory as a formal theory. Complexity theory is expanded upon and identified as
providing a new perspective and a new method of theorizing that can be practiced by disciplines
within the social sciences. These additions could better position the social sciences to address the
complexity associated with advancing technology, globalization, intricate markets, cultural change,
and the myriad of challenges and opportunities to come.

Keywords: general systems theory; complexity theory; complex adaptive systems

1. Introduction
The implementation of new technological innovations in the workplace and globalization are
just two indicators of future, higher skilled workforce requirements [1] and herald the intensification
of complexity in the workplace due to an increasing rate of unpredictable change [2], information
overload, globalization, and geopolitical unrest. Organizations need to manage this growing
complexity with the human resources available to them, skilled or unskilled, through the adoption
and diffusion of complexity science. Becoming more prevalent across multiple disciplines as one
means of making sense and being able to manage such complexity, complexity science is often
recognized as the “new science” [3] (p. 94), in which organizations are viewed as complex systems
that cannot be observed using traditional linear methodologies.
deMattos, Miller, and Park [4] described three trends that are contributing to the growth of
complexity science. First, dramatic changes are taking place for both organizations and governments
in part due to “globalization, intensive local and global competition, process re-engineering,
workforce diversity, quality improvement, and continual innovation” [4] (p. 1554). Second, we are in
an information revolution; the productivity of information processes is increasing, and costs are
declining (e.g., information retrieval, processing, and storage). Third, organizations are dissolving at
alarming rates [4].
Criticized by some because many of the existing project management tools and methodologies
are reductionistic and more suited to single projects than multi-projects [5], a call for new techniques
and methodologies for multi-project management efforts has been made. Given that multi-projects
dominate project management, with some data estimating that multi-projects constitute as high as

Systems 2019, 7, 4; doi:10.3390/systems7010004 www.mdpi.com/journal/systems

Systems 2019, 7, 4 2 of 23

90% of projects, Aritua et al. [5] have challenged the discipline of project management to draw on
research from complex, dynamical systems and from complexity theory to gain new insights into
developing new techniques and methodologies. Similarly, other disciplines have been called to take
the ecosystem approach, as in Gregory, Atkins, Burdon, and Elliott’s [6] study on marine
management. The ecosystem approach utilizes complex science by calling for a shift from
reductionistic research (e.g., single-species research), compartmentalized decision making, and
policy formulation to one that recognizes complex systems with multiple elements (e.g., ecological,
social, economic, and political) [6].
Traditional sciences have utilized a reductionistic framework or a realist philosophy [7], in
which an entity is reduced to its smaller parts. By understanding the workings of the smaller parts,
the whole can be understood more comprehensively [4]. Although this reductionistic framework has
served science well in the past, such as during the Industrial Revolution [4], it is inadequate to serve
science well today due to the complexities of the modern world (e.g., increasing wicked problems,
global warming, information overload, globalization, and geopolitical unrest). Complexity science
expands on the reductionistic framework by not only understanding the parts that contribute to the
whole but by understanding how each part interacts with all the other parts and emerges into a new
entity, thus having a more comprehensive and complete understanding of the whole. Individual
causal research in complex systems is near futile; a comprehensive approach is required to account
for the unpredictability found in complex systems [7]. New theoretical models that reflect “real-life
complexity” are being called for by researchers [8] (p. 162). To better understand such systems,
complexity science offers complex adaptive systems (CAS) as “a framework for understanding these
systems” [4] (p. 1550).
Although there is a semi-clear distinction between systems theory, complex adaptive systems,
and complexity theory, the literature within some of the human resource (HR) disciplines (human
relations; human resource development, HRD; and human resource management, HRM) fail to make
this distinction. Today, for example, HRD still identifies systems theory as one of its foundational
theories even after many disciplines have shifted to complexity theory via complex adaptive systems
due to the changing and complex environment in which they operate. Disciplines have been forced
to address open systems and more complex problems (e.g., wicked problems) as opposed to
employing the traditional reductionistic methods used last century. Comparably, highlighted within
HR and other social science literatures, systems theory has been identified as more of a myth than a
foundational theory, partly due to its disconnect between practice and theory and to its
overwhelming use of linear methods when examining social systems [9].
The current article identifies the differences between general systems theory (GST), complex
adaptive systems, and complexity theory. It begins with a short discussion differentiating between
system and systems, followed an explanation of what GST involves. Then, a clarification of open and
closed systems is presented along with a discussion identifying the basic principles of complex
adaptive systems (CAS) and complexity theory. The article then provides some current examples of
the use of complexity theory and concludes with new directions for disciplines in the social sciences,
recommending the inclusion of complexity theory in future research efforts. In the concluding
remarks, the authors argue for incorporating complexity theory along with more non-reductionistic
methods into the study of relationships and understanding in the social sciences in addition to the
traditional GST and reductionistic methods. Also, the current article expands upon the work
presented by Haslberger [8] in describing complexity theory as a new potential method for
explanation and theorizing. We propose the same in the current article—that complexity theory be
adopted as a new method of explanation and theorizing for the social sciences.

2. Systems and Complexity Theories

2.1. System versus Systems

In identifying the key concepts of GST, Kast and Rosenzweig [10] (p. 450) defined a system as
being “composed of interrelated parts or elements.” von Bertalanffy [11] (p. 416) defined a system as
Systems 2019, 7, 4 3 of 23

a “model of general nature, that is, a conceptual analog of certain rather universal traits of observed
entities.” Perhaps the most related definition of a system is that it represents a whole consisting of
several parts/members [12]. This definition hits on the distinction between a system and systems:
whereas the former represents the whole (the system), the latter makes up the whole (components,
systems, and subsystems). A system’s components are also dependent on other components [12].
When dealing with systems, researchers need to clearly identify which level they are analyzing.
Kast and Rosenzweig [10] (p. 455) stressed identifying both “the boundaries of the system under
consideration and the level of … analysis [systems].” These boundaries vary and are typically set by
the researcher or the theoretical system. Once the boundary and appropriate level of analysis (system,
systems, subsystems) have been identified, the system’s structure can be modeled, providing what
von Bertalanffy [11] termed an explanation in principle. This explanation in principle provides both a
level of explanation and prediction, as well as leads to the formation of systems thinking.

2.2. General Systems Theory

Systems theory has been portrayed in the HR literature as transforming inputs into outputs [13]
and as a method of identifying inputs, processes, outputs, and feedback components of a system to
discuss and research systems more intelligently [14]. Here, systems theory has been defined as “a
theoretical framework by which elements that act in concert to produce some result are studied” [9]
(p. 56). In other literature, systems theory, or general systems theory (GST), has been defined as “an
openness of social systems, but also implies system boundaries and stable patterns of relationships
within boundaries” [15] (p. 352). By identifying boundaries between systems and their environment,
researchers are better able to study interactions between the systems and their environment [16].
Koopmans [17] (p. 21) highlighted von Bertalanffy’s [11] definition (one originator of GST) as viewing
“the behavior of a system in terms of that of its constituent components and the interrelationships
between those components [subsystems]”, with the unit of analysis as the system or its subsystems.
Although von Bertalanffy initially used system in the singular, he saw the systems view as the
foundation of a scientific paradigm for science and humankind; following, the common reference to
GST is general systems theory, with systems as a plural [18].
Understanding that systems have common features, von Bertalanffy [11] and others derived
GST. Under GST, it is understood that “there are general aspects, correspondences, and
isomorphisms common to ‘systems’” [11] (p. 415). As GST evolved, it became more of an
interdisciplinary field of study where different concepts, models, and principles were applied to
systems [11], beginning the derivative to GST, systems theory. Other theoretical systems approaches
beyond GST and systems theory, include “cybernetics, theory of automata, control theory,
information theory, set, graph and network theory, relational mathematics, game and decision
theory, computerization and simulation, and so forth” [11] (p. 416). However, for many social science
disciplines, GST and systems theory have been the fields’ standard. All of these theoretical systems
approaches, as highlighted by von Bertalanffy [11], relate to systems problems.
Comparing different systems approaches (e.g., cybernetics, information theory), von Bertalanffy
[11] concluded that systems also include interrelations within the systems. Here, GST utilizes the
system holistic principle, borrowed from Aristotle and the Gestalt movement: the whole is greater than
the sum of its parts. Thus, GST approaches systems problems within stated boundaries. Identifying
these boundaries, however, becomes more challenging when dealing with social systems: “It is hard
to define such a boundary to an organization” [16] (p. 397). Applying systems theory to social
systems, such as organizations, can be difficult [16]. As one of its main disadvantages, when dealing
with social systems, GST has become too mechanistic: “systems theory is indeed the ultimate step
toward the mechanization and devaluation of man and toward technocratic society” [11] (pp. 423–
424). Also, one additional concern is that social systems are composed of humans, who typically
operate with an understanding of having free will [10]. Social systems, according to Kast and
Rosenzweig [10], have purpose and may evolve beyond the boundaries of the systems, thus making
the systems unpredictable. Some would also go as far to say that “it is futile to try to solve problems
in the human sciences [human resources] with tools appropriate to the natural sciences” [12] (p. 520).
Systems 2019, 7, 4 4 of 23

In viewing changes in a system or subsystems over time, dynamic systems theory differentiates
between three system states: asymptotically stable, neutrally stable, and unstable [11]. Stability refers
to how a system responds to perturbations. A system is identified as being asymptotically stable if it
returns to is original state after a disturbance and unstable if it changes states [11]. It is ideal to have
an asymptotically stable system when viewed by GST. When a system has been identified as unstable,
the system is controlled back to its asymptotically stable state: “a system which is not asymptotically
stable is made so by incorporating a controller” [11] (p. 418). Having a system that is asymptotically
stable or having the ability to place controls on a system to maintain stability, adds to a system’s
predictability. These controls can also act as buffers to external perturbations [19], further
manipulating the system, or at least a subsystem, to maintain a desired state. These controls counter,
in many cases, the self-organizing processes within the system.
Systems theory has been instrumental to the social sciences and has served as a foundation for
HR theory. However, systems theory has come under attack in recent years due to its inability to
address complexity and non-linear systems [9,20] and its mechanistic nature when viewing human
systems. To further develop the potential for expanding the use of complexity theory in HR and social
science contexts, the current article focuses on describing complexity theory and its components to
outline the differences between and overlaps of systems theory and complexity theory.

2.3. Distinguishing Boundaries of GST

One key feature of GST is the concept of reversible and irreversible processes. For systems to be
sustainable, they must have reversible processes—those that are capable of changing state and
returning back to their initial state. One example of a reversible process is water and steam. Under
the right conditions, water is capable of changing states to steam and is reversible in that the steam
can return back to water. The problem within systems is when processes become irreversible; they
tend to be unsustainable, uncontrollable, and can potentially destroy some of their own components.
This follows the second law of thermodynamics as highlighted by von Bertalanffy [11] (p. 409): “The
second law of thermodynamics prescribes that ordered systems in which irreversible processes take
place tend toward most probable states and, hence, toward destruction of existing order and ultimate
decay.”

2.3.1. Open versus Closed Systems

Identifying the key concepts of GST, Kast and Rosenzweig [10] highlighted that a system can be
viewed as being either a closed or open system. An open system freely exchanges information,
resources, and energy, whereas a closed system retains these products for its own use. Kast and
Rosenzweig [10] also recognized that a system can be somewhere between open and closed as
opposed to being fully open or fully closed.
A closed system is bounded. In most cases, this boundary protects the closed system, along with
its systems and subsystems, from external environmental forces (e.g., airplane, automobile, and
battery). An open system does not have this separation from environmental forces; it is not bounded
and can be influenced from a number of forces, internal or external of the system (e.g., global
warming, social movements, and terrorism).

2.3.2. Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

Complex adaptive systems (CAS) generally refer to “open dynamical systems that are able to
self-organize their structural configuration through the exchange of information, energy and other
resources within their environment, are able to transform these resources in order to support action”
[21] (p. Firms), and are self-organizing systems with little to no direct control over these systems from
external forces. Having organic interactions within and between systems that are constantly taking
place as the systems’ components learn to adapt to external forces, the systems are also dynamic. CAS
tend to transform to new states once the systems have learned to be adaptive to their new
environment; this is termed “emergence” within the complexity literature.
Systems 2019, 7, 4 5 of 23

A list of various definitions for CAS from the literature is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Definitions of complex adaptive systems (CAS).

Source CAS Definitions

Responsive processes among multiple agents. A complex adaptive system cannot be created or
[22] (p. 732) controlled by individual actors. But the system can be influenced, nurtured, and exploited by a
group of actors.
[23] (p. 213) Made up of a large number of parts that interact in a nonsimple way.
A system of individual agents, who have the freedom to act in ways that are not always totally
[24] (p. 963) predictable and whose actions are interconnected such that one agent’s actions change the context
for other agents [25] (p. 2).
Composed of interacting ‘agents’ following rules, exchanging influence with their local and global
[26] (p. 279) environments and altering the very environment they are responding to by virtue of their simple
actions [27] (p. 17).
[5] (p. 76) Systems that exhibit the characteristics of complexity theory.
[28] (p. 1246) Self-organization and emergence are central features of complex adaptive systems.
Aggregates of interacting subunits, or agents, which together produce complex and adaptive
[29] (p. 413)
behavior patterns.
[30] (p. 216) Have the capability to learn and adapt to changes in their environments.
[31] (p. 354) Both emergent and intentional processes coexist and coevolve.
A network of many agents acting in parallel, where control is highly dispersed, where coherent
behavior in the system arises from competition and co-operation among agents themselves, where
there are many levels of organization, with agents at one level serving as the building blocks for
[32] (pp. 321–322)
agents at a higher level, where there is constant revising and rearranging of their building blocks as
they gain experience, where the implicit or explicit assumptions about the environment are
constantly tested by the agents [33] (p. 7).
Heterogeneous elements that interrelate with each other and with their surroundings, and are
[34] (p. 691)
unlimited in their capacity to adapt their behavior through experience.
Agents are connected, interdependent, and have the potential to produce non-linear (i.e., extreme)
[35] (p. 408)
outcomes.
Complex systems—highly connected networks of semi-independent agents from which system
[1] (p. 334)
wide patterns emerge—that can learn and adapt over time.
A diverse alignment of connected yet independent agents that focus on systems of many
[4] (p. 1550) interdependent components with these agents having the ability to interact, adapt, or learn by
creating models to anticipate the future, in which reality can be illuminated.
Connective structures that exhibit re-entrant connections whereby energy is translated into
[36] (p. 876) structures that, in turn, can absorb more energy. This is aided by the absorption of information and
the formation of knowledge structures that can be drawn upon in energy seeking.
[6] (p. 558) Formed through the interconnection between natural systems, designed systems and social systems.
[37] (p. 913) Human social systems … capable of independent spontaneous, self-organization.
[38] (p. 5) Investigates systems that adapt and evolve while they self-organize.
Cannot be reduced to the sums of their component parts because the ability to maintain the
[39] (p. 1290) emerging properties depends more on the interdependency of the elements than on the behavior of
individual components.
Component parts interact with sufficient intricacy that they cannot be predicted by standard linear
equations, so many variables are at work in the system that its over-all behavior can only be
[40] (pp. 7–8)
understood as an emergent consequence of the holistic sum of the myriad behaviors embedded
within.
Embedded in the fine detail of the many entities and their interactions, not in the gross pattern of a
[41] (p. 443)
few strong linkages [42] (p. 54).
[43] (p. 19) Involve great numbers of parts undergoing a kaleidoscopic array of simultaneous interactions.
[44] (p. 29) Emergent systems … they are shaped and developed over time through an evolutionary process.
Composed of interacting sub-units with simple individual behavioral characteristics. The
[45] (p. 509) interacting individuals and units combine to produce complex coordinated patterns of collective
behaviors (emergence) that change and adapt.
Characterized by diversity and emergence...where the interacting agents that make up the system
[46] (p. 392)
and the system, as a whole, is adaptive.
Adaptive systems which consist of a variety of individuals with numerous relationships between
[47] (pp. 8–9) each other, constantly interacting with one another, having mutual effects on one another, and
thereby generating novel behavior.
[48] (p. 231) A sub-set or type of system, has several properties that defy traditional science.
Different elements are continuously interacting with each other and producing reactions that are
[49] (p. 105)
ultimately intertwined, but in practice are often impossible to anticipate or trace afterwards.
Systems 2019, 7, 4 6 of 23

Social systems that are diverse, non-linear, consisting of multiple interactive, interdependent, and
interconnected sub-elements. They are adaptive and self-organizing, tending toward ever-greater
[50] (p. 996)
complexity operating at the ‘edge of chaos’ and therefore in a constant state of innovation and
dynamic equilibrium.
[51] (p. 363) Agents whose interactions result in self-organization, emergence, and adaptation.

Self-organization implies that no system constituent (or anything outside the system) has a direct
or an exclusive control over its collective patterns or how these patterns change. It also means that
the interactions among the system’s constituents are not centrally controlled, but rather local; this
localness is related to physical or cognitive dimensions. The collective, ordered patterns that emerge
via self-organization in CAS are usually known as emergent properties, i.e., properties that arise or
characterize a system at a certain level as the result of interactions taking place at a lower level [21]
(p. Firm).
Different characteristics that make up CAS from the literature are provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Characteristics of complex adaptive systems (CAS).

Complex Adaptive
Source Description
System Characteristics
The surroundings in which living beings exist and behave
[22] (pp. 733–735) Fitness Landscape …. changes continuously … determines the effectiveness
of the behavior of the acting agents.
Emergent properties… characterized by a specific
Adaptive Capability
configuration of activities…to meet external demands.
Involves cultural consensus and clarity, in the form of
Integration
collectively shared rituals and jargons.
Involves subcultures and islands of clarity, in the form of
Differentiation
different rituals and jargons.
Involves jargons and rituals loaded with ambiguity, in the
Fragmentation
form of irony, paradoxes, or contradictions.
The extent to which an activity system is decomposable
[23] (p. 216) Modularity
into separate identity-retaining subsystems of activities.
The extent to which an activity system exhibits certain
Concentration central activities that are interdependent with many
peripheral activities.
The extent to which a focal activity system exhibits
Openness coevolutionary interdependencies between its own
activities and those of external organizations.
Created by actors in an interactive relationship and
[26] (pp. 281–282) Schemas-Diversity provide a framework enabling agents to anticipate the
results of their actions.
Heterogeneous agents which inter-relate with each other
Interaction- and with their surroundings and are unlimited in their
Interdependence capabilities to adapt their behavior based on their
experience.
Individual components affect each other and influence
[5] (pp. 76–77) Inter-relationships actions. A system is complex if it consists of many varied
interrelated parts.
Open systems affect, and are affected by, external
Adaptability environmental systems. Open systems must be capable of
reacting to changes in external environmental systems.
Systems tend toward order or self-organization.
Self-Organization Individuals act in similar ways in proximity to and in
concert with each other.
Emergence The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Feedback Information is circulated, modified, and returned.
Systems 2019, 7, 4 7 of 23

Small changes in the initial conditions or external

Non-linearity environment can have large and unpredictable
consequences in the outcomes of the system.
Collections of actors with simple individual behavioral
characteristics combine to produce complicated
[29] (pp. 413–418) Strange Attractors
coordinated patterns of group behaviors that change and
adapt to environmental circumstances.
The structuring of connections between collections of
Agent Cooperation
agents and how they interact to produce attractor patterns.
Strategic Leadership Influence the context and structure of agent activity.
Systems that respond to increasingly complex
environments by importing greater resources from outside
Dissipative Structures
and exchanging more resources within their boundaries to
achieve greater degrees of fitness.
Systems exhibit non-linear relationships among variables,
including time, and the future behavior of these systems
Conveying History
depends on their initial starting points and subsequent
histories.
Emerges from external constraints and corresponds to the
Adaptive Tension energy differential between the system and its
[31] (p. 356)
(region of complexity) environment. Between the ‘edge of order’ and the ‘edge of
chaos’.
Design systems in which distributed intelligence can
Enabling Leadership
easily emerge.
Increase agents’ connectivity and receptivity inside an
Adaptive Advantage organization in order to enhance cooperation and
learning.
Interacting with actors external to one’s network brings
Requisite Variety
diversity and novelty into the system, allowing it to create
(boundary spanning)
new knowledge.
[4] (p. 1555) Diversity Diversity and individuality of components.
Interactions Localized interactions among those components.
An autonomous process that uses the outcomes of those
Autonomous interactions to select a subset of those components for
replication or enhancement.
Local and remote, non-linear interactions, positive and
[6] (pp. 564–565); Continuous Varying negative feedbacks, large number of elements, continuous
[37] (pp. 913–915) Interactions (CVI) interaction, connected open systems, rich interactions, and
relationships coevolve.
Patterns emerge, stable and far-from-equilibrium, origins
Patterns Development
of patterns, and patterns (stabilizing, de-stabilizing, or
(PD)
both).
People Factors (PF) Whole system ignorance, histories, and space possibilities.
Creation of environments to develop their own plans and
Self-Organization (SO)
future.
Small changes in the input or the initial state can lead to
[38] (p. 5) Non-linearity order of magnitude differences in the output or the final
state.
Emergence Order emerges from complex interactions.
Irreversibility Change is path dependent.
Non-predictability Unpredictability of system outcomes.
Shaping the cluster in which individual organizations
[39] (p. 1290) Landscape
adapt.
Positive Feedback
Amplify and reinforce the small actions of actors.
Loops
Boundary Constraints Dampen or limit the self-organizing processes.
Novel outcomes Unpredictable and only known in retrospect.
Systems 2019, 7, 4 8 of 23

Permits the system to use individual rules as building

[43] (pp. 25–26) Parallelism blocks, activating sets of rules to describe and act upon the
changing situations.
Allows the system to marshal its rules as the situation
Competition
demands, providing flexibility and transfer of experience.
Recombination Generating plausible new rules from parts of tested rules.
Describes whether a system is perceived as being simple,
[44] (pp. 29–30) Framing
complicated, or complex.
The physical or conceptual nature of the system ….
embodies the following structure: a large number of
elements, interaction between the elements, interactions
are rich, interactions are non-linear, interactions have a
Structure
short range, interactions have loops, the system is open,
disequilibrium rules the system, the system has a history,
each element is ignorant of the behavior of the system as a
whole.
[45] (p. 505) Non-linearity No Description
Unpredictability No Description
Sensitivity to Changes
No Description
in Initial Conditions
Adapting to
No Description
Environment
Oscillating Between
No Description
Stability and Instability
Emergence No Description
The emergent processes through which CAS form and
[46] (pp. 392–394) Complexity Dynamics operate. Key processes include self-organization,
emergence, and bonding.
The necessary conditions under which complex behavior
will occur. Enabling conditions include the presence of
Enabling Conditions
dynamic interaction, interdependence between agents,
heterogeneity in the system, and tension.
Connectivity and Responsible for a variety of feedback mechanisms, which
[47] (p. 9)
Interdependence occur within an organization.
Positive feedback moves the system away from its
Feedback equilibrium and is a driver for change and instability.
Negative feedback tries to bring the system back.
At the edge of chaos where the system experiences
Far-From-Equilibrium
spontaneous self-organization and emergent order.
Emergence New order and space-of-new-possibilities.
[48] (p. 231) Path Dependent Sensitive to initial conditions.
React disproportionately to environmental
Non-Linearity
perturbations…. The ‘butterfly effect’.
Each organization’s internal dynamics affect its ability to
Emergence change in a manner that might be quite different from
other organizations.
Have equal capacity to adapt and evolve …. self-
Adaptive
organization.
The linkages that a system has with its neighboring
[49] (pp. 105–110) Connectivity
systems.
The tendency of several systems, or several sub-systems
Co-Evolution within one main system, to move together towards new
forms of existence or new states of development.
Amplifying loops between systems or units (positive and
Reinforcing Cycles
negative feedback).
Systems 2019, 7, 4 9 of 23

Non-Linearity and
Refers to the outcomes of CAS, which differ from the
Sensitivity to Initial
outcomes of simple systems.
Conditions
Self-Organization Pattern and regularity emerge spontaneously in a system.
A complex system contains many constituents interacting
[52] (pp. 12–17) Non-linearity
non-linearly.
A complex system is an open system in which the
Open System
boundaries permit interaction with the environment.
A complex system contains feedback loops that can be
Feedback Loops amplifying (positive feedback) and balancing (negative
feedback).
A complex system possesses a structure spanning several
Scalable
scales (fractural structures) that are self-similar.
Emergence No Description
Natural Behavior
No Description
Elements
Exchange Energy No Description
Share Information No Description
Align Choices for
No Description
Interaction
A complex system is capable of co-evolution with
Coevolve Together
emergent behavior.

Given the various representations for the characteristics that make up CAS (see Table 2), CAS
display at least the following characteristics: path dependence, non-linearity, emergence, and
adaptiveness [48]. Figure 1 identifies the basic tenets for most CAS. Being sensitive to small changes
is elemental to CAS’ path-dependent characteristic. Path-dependent systems are “sensitive to their
initial conditions, so that the same force might affect seemingly similar organizations [systems]
differently based on their histories” [48] (p. 231). If small changes in a system can lead to big effects
and, within the same system, big changes can also have minimal effects, then these effects can be
difficult to predict [37]. This inability to predict future states of a system is indicative of a non-linear
system. In addition to the aforementioned information, as in Section 2.4, emergence, according to
Lindberg and Schneider [48], refers to a system’s interactions that lead to a change that could result
in an organization being different from other organizations. This emergence also makes CAS
irreducible; due to its emergent properties, higher-order states cannot be reduced to their original
lower-level states. Thus, a phase transition typically occurs, changing the initial lower-level states.
Having the ability to be adaptive, operating between chaos and order, is one of the unique
characteristics of CAS. By operating between chaos and order, CAS avoid the status quo while at the
same time avoiding complete chaos. This balance is self-organizing and allows CAS to learn and
evolve into new emergent states.

Figure 1. Tenets of complex adaptive system (CAS).

Systems 2019, 7, 4 10 of 23

2.4. Complexity Theory

Interactions drive a system toward new emerging states as it coevolves within its environment
[53]. Complexity theory, synonymous with complexity science in the literature, is best described in
the following quote:
Complexity science targets a sub-set of all systems; a sub-set which is abundant and is the
basis of all novelty; a sub-set which is evidenced in biology, chemistry, physics, social,
technical and economic domains; a sub-set which coevolves with its environment; a sub-set
from which structure emerges. That is, self-organization occurs through the dynamics,
interactions and feedbacks of heterogeneous components …. This sub-set of all systems is
known as complex systems. [53] (p. 12)
Having the potential of being able to provide insight into organizational change dynamics,
which have been insufficiently modeled in the social sciences [32], complexity theory is more
frequently found in the literature today and is showing new promise for disciplines studying
complex systems. Table 3 highlights some of these areas.

Table 3. Complexity theory applications.

Source Context
[32,47,50] Change in organizations
[1] Colleges and universities
[31] Communities of practice
[54] Complexity in practice
[6] Ecosystem–grass management
[4,28] Emergency responders and trauma centers
[24,35] Entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship
[7,55] Evaluation practice
[39] Industry clusters in China
[5] Information technology industry
[46] Mentoring relationships
[56] Multi-business organizations
[26,34] Organizational learning
[23] Organizational strategic renewal
[22,29] Organizations
[57] Policy implementation
[5] Project management
[51] Public management
[2,32,54,58] Strategic management and development
[30,41,59] Supply chain management and disk management

The following propositions relate to complexity theory: “Simple systems give rise to complex
behavior. Complex systems give rise to simple behavior. And most importantly, the laws of complexity
hold universally, caring not at all for the details of a system’s constituent atoms” [60] (p. 304).
Complexity theory differs in how it perceives the principle of system holism. Rather than viewing
the whole as the sum of its parts, complexity theory asserts the following: “The whole is different
from the sum of its parts and their interactions” [61] (p. 77). Through emergence, the whole cannot
be reduced to the original parts, the whole is considered a new entity or unit. The whole is
“qualitatively different from their parts …. They cannot be meaningfully compared–they are
different!” [61] (p. System holism).
Table 4 provides a list of definitions and descriptions found in the literature relating to
complexity theory/science.
Systems 2019, 7, 4 11 of 23

Table 4. Descriptions of complexity theory.

Source Complexity, Complexity Science/Theory Descriptions

[24] (p. 963) A study of order-breaking and order-creating processes.
A study of changing patterns of order, self-organization, or constrained
[24] (p. 964)
diversity.
Sets out to devise mechanisms to create and maintain complexity, and to
[26] (p. 279)
produce tools for its description and analysis.
Provides an opportunity to re-examine reductionist and mechanistic thinking
[5] (p. 76)
thereby providing a more holistic view.
Complex systems made up of interdependent agents that interact, learn from
[28] (p. 1246)
each other, and adapt their behaviors accordingly.
[30] (p. 216) A system made up of a large number of parts that interact in a nonsimple way.
[62] (p. 546) Describes the evolutionary phases of a system’s structure and function.
Studies the behavior of complexity interacting, interdependent, and adaptive
[31] (p. 355)
agents under internal and external pressures.
Provides an integrative and dynamic framework to understand the interaction
[31] (p. 356) patterns in networks of interdependent agents who interact and are bound by
their common needs or objectives.
[32] (p. 320) Provides insight into those dynamic processes of change in organizations.
Small changes in the interaction pattern of a large number of rule-abiding
[58] (p. 968)
agents can have big effects.
Sensitivity to initial conditions, negative and positive feedback processes,
[57] (p. 430)
disequilibrium, and emergent order.
Made up of a very large number of autonomous elements …. dynamic,
[54] (pp. 796–
interactive, governed by micro-rules, exhibit ‘butterfly effects’, non-linear, and
797)
exhibit replicated patterns.
Made up of heterogeneous elements that interrelate with one another and with
[34] (p. 688)
their surroundings.
Focuses on the underlying dynamics that give rise to a broad range of
[35] (p. 404) outcomes in all social systems …. to understand emergence in its most
fundamental form.
A form for investigating the properties and behavior of the dynamics of non-
[4] (p. 1555)
linear systems.
[36] (p. 875) A body of theory about connections.
[37] (p. 911) A perturbation, or disturbance, to a system.
[63] (p.
A field of research that explores how independent agents interact with each
Complexity
other in a variety of ways.
theory)
The dramatic increase in the number and heterogeneity of included
[38] (p. 1)
components, relations, and their dynamic and unexpected interactions.
Highlights spatial self-organization, non-linearities, plurality of equilibria, and
[39] (p. 1282)
the importance of coevolutionary relationships.
Describes non-linear systems that are mechanistic, unpredictable, and without
[44] (p. 29)
memory.
Suggests this level (those operating between top management team and
[45] (p. 504) middle management) is the collection of people in the best position to provide
the impetus for organizational adaptation.
Looks at how ‘order, structure, pattern, and novelty arise from extremely
complicated, apparently chaotic, systems and conversely, how complex
[46] (p. 392)
behavior and structure emerges from simple underlying rules’ (Cooke-Davies
et al., 2007, p. 52).
Systems 2019, 7, 4 12 of 23

The irreducibility of the behavior of systems to the behavior of the constituent

[17] (p. 30) components …. It calls for the investigation of the interaction between
systemic components at different levels of description.
[21] (p. 161) Aims to better understand and predict behavior of natural systems.
Moves away from linear cause-and-effect mechanistic view…towards a more
[47] (p. 8) organic world view characterized by non-linear behavior, uncertainty, and
unpredictability.
[49] (p. 105) A rich set of concepts derived from the advancements of natural sciences.
Comprised of numerous interacting agents, each of which acts on the basis of
[64] (p. 519)
local knowledge rules.

Complexity science has developed three schools of thought: reductionistic complexity science,
complexity thinking, and soft complexity science, also known as the metaphorical school [65,66]. The
reductionistic school reduces elements into lower-level components and develops rules of interaction
between the lower-level elements and the higher-level elements [65] as a means of explaining new
emergent properties; here is where physics addresses the theory of everything. Complexity thinking
focuses on what cannot be explained [65]. The epistemology is that knowledge concerning our
environment is always incomplete; complexity thinking focuses on our limits of this incomplete
knowledge [65]. The last school, the metaphorical school, believes that the “social world is
intrinsically different from the natural world” [66] (p. 20) and challenges the Newtonian worldview
[65] by viewing complexity through a connectionist perspective where causal connections cannot be
identified, hence, are too simplistic compared to the whole system when analyzed. Rather than
viewing the world as a mechanistic entity, the metaphorical school views the world as an organic
entity [65]. In the current article, the authors take the perspective provided by the metaphorical school
in which concepts such as “connectivity, edge-of-chaos, far-from-equilibrium, dissipative structures,
emergence, epi-static coupling, coevolving landscapes, etc.,” [66] (p. 20) have been identified in explaining
metaphorically, complex systems.
The basic tenets of complexity theory are non-linear dynamics, chaos theory, and
adaptation/evolution [15]; others include emergence, self-organization, feedback, and chaos [21].
Complexity theory views systems as being non-linear, thus future states are unpredictable. As a
system transitions from simple to complex, the predictive mechanisms become less reliable. Chaos is
deterministic and linear, with mathematical meaning [63], and has sensitivity to its initial conditions
[67]. Complexity theory applies mathematical modeling of linear and predictable states when
viewing chaos, whereas it employs CAS to view unpredictable, non-linear systems. Using
mathematical modeling, chaos identifies the global patterns from the components’ interactions in
self-organizing systems [21], while CAS identify the interactions from these components. A key
element of CAS involves emergence. Emergence occurs when the interactions from the system
components tend to lead to new states, contributing to the system’s unpredictability. The conditions
of feedback, evolution, and adaptation all refer to a system’s ability to learn and can be found in both
chaos and CAS.
Complexity theory addresses open systems compared to closed systems. This is a major
distinction of complexity theory compared to other theoretical systems approaches. This distinction
goes against the second law of thermodynamics and is where complexity theory operates. Nearly all
of the systems of interest in complexity theory are open systems [61] that include the components of
self-organization and emergence. Related to the second law of thermodynamics, rather than
irreversible processes causing the system to become self-destructive [11], the processes,
self-organization and emergence, evolve new system states that are sustainable.
In its most basic form, complexity theory involves the primary concepts of chaos and CAS, along
with the tenets of path dependence, system history, non-linearity, emergence, irreducibility,
adaptiveness, operating between order and chaos, and self-organization, as portrayed in Figure 2.
Chaos is supported by self-organization, adaptation/evolution, feedback, and deterministic systems,
and CAS are supported through self-organization, emergence, adaptation/evolution,
Systems 2019, 7, 4 13 of 23

feedback/history, and nondeterministic systems. For the current article, the authors identify
emergence to be primarily associated with CAS and identify complexity theory as being composed
of two concepts, chaos and CAS. The authors realize, and represent (see Figure 2), that there is some
overlap between the two systems and that emergence could be included in some chaotic states.

Figure 2. Complexity theory

In relation to the purpose of the current research project, CAS are the model that is
recommended for addressing today’s complexity in the social sciences. By implementing CAS,
complexity theory could operate in parallel with systems theory. While GST can operate under the
principle of system holism from a reductionistic perspective, complexity theory could expand the
social sciences by providing a perspective counter to the principle of system holism that incorporates
a connectionist approach rather than reductionism. The following section discusses further the
differences between GST and complexity theory, including CAS.

2.5. Differentiating GST from Complexity Theory

There are multiple differences between GST and complexity theory. Presented in the following
section are further distinctions between the two, including the following: the principle of system
holism, open and closed systems, linear and non-linear systems, and the application of the concept
of irreducibility.

2.5.1. The Principle of System Holism

Complexity relates to the emerging whole, which differentiates complexity theory from GST. As
GST follows the principle of system holism—that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts—
complexity theory operates on the principle that “the whole is different from the sum of its parts and
their interactions” [61] (p. System holism).

2.5.2. Open and Closed Systems

Theoretical systems approaches identify mostly with closed systems, but not always. There are
a number of GST approaches that look at open systems, especially those that look at social systems.
However, complexity theory and CAS are predominantly associated with open systems. The
literature portrays CAS as unordered, chaotic, and complex in which patterns can emerge (open
system). In contrast, GST is related to order, with structured patterns both simple, and complicated
(closed system) [37]. The primary distinction between open and closed systems relates to the second
law of thermodynamics, which applies primarily to closed systems and not to open systems. As
stated previously, the second law of thermodynamics is associated with theoretical systems
approaches, whereas complexity theory goes against the second law of thermodynamics due to the
tenets of self-organization and emergence.
Systems 2019, 7, 4 14 of 23

2.5.3. Linear and Non-Linear Systems

Theoretical systems approaches view systems structurally, where “individuals and subsystems
cannot be isolated from the larger systems” [17] (p. 20) and view the system state (its current state)
as an approximate future state [67]. The non-isolation of individuals and the norm of subsystems to
causality and linearity, which relate to rules-based systems and to systems theory: “Systems theory
recognizes the existence of multiple forms of causality: linear, linear chains, multiple simultaneous
causes, and mutual causation” [67] (p. 24). In contrast, complexity theory views systems as a process
[17] that is self-organizing. Systems are non-linear and unpredictable and therefore cannot be
analyzed or managed using traditional techniques, defying prediction and linear causal laws [37].
Complexity and CAS move away from reductionist thinking (analyzing individual elements) to a
connectionist perspective in which the interactions among and between elements are viewed along
with the system’s adaptability to change to environmental forces [68].
Rules-Based Approach. Rules play an essential role in the emergence of mechanistic systems
that are not typically self-organizing but result from random mutations [26]. The prediction of these
rules-based systems come from the form of the rules or schemas [26]. Rule-based behaviors are an
aggregate of the system’s interactions and are linear or predictable [58]. Small changes in interactions
in rule-based systems can result in large effects [58].
Connectionist Approach. This perspective views systems as being self-organizing and
participatory with respect to all agents, where the connections and interactions among the individual
agents result in emergence [26], making prediction less likely. Emergence occurs from non-linearity
and can be viewed as being multiplicative [58] or exponential and cannot be predicted based on
traditional correlation and cause-and-effect statements [26] or from predefined rules. Agents refer to
entities within systems such as individuals, teams, functions, departments, and organizations [49].
Adopting a connectionist approach, we understand that the system’s outcomes cannot be
predicted due to the fact that too many actors are in play and due to the complexity of the system:
“As the number of units—and relationships—grow, we cannot master the increased complexity” [49]
(pp. 105–106). The authors do, however, believe that the processes can be understood and managed
through the interactions that take place among the agents involved [69].
This position is similar to Uhl-Bien and Marion’s [70] (p. 637) mechanism-based theorizing in
their presentation of complexity leadership theory: “With mechanisms, we look for patterns of
interaction that are recognizable across situations to identify an intelligible answer to the question of
why something happened in situations where specific causes and effects are not identifiable”.

2.5.4. Irreducibility
A final distinction between GST and complexity theory is irreducibility. Irreducibility indicates
that the “higher-level entity is not merely aggregated, it is holistic (i.e., possessing limited direct
relationship to its constituent parts)” [70] (p. 637). This is similar to the concepts of reversible and
irreversible processes. The former, reversibility, is a process in which the lower-level states (the parts)
aggregate into a higher-level state (sum of the parts) then back again to the same constituent parts,
and reversibility is synonymous with systems theory. Alternatively, irreversible processes,
sometimes referred to as non-decomposable elements [71], have the same ability to convert lower-level
states (the parts) into higher-level states. However, this higher-level state is different than the sum of
the parts, partially due to emergence and self-organization. This irreversible process cannot be
reduced back to its original components and is synonymous with complexity theory.

2.6. Complexity Theory for the Social Sciences

Complexity theory has been described as a new science in which “nobody knows quite how to
define it, or even where its boundaries lie” [72] (p. 9). Complexity theory has also been portrayed as
a “paradigm shift from previous science” and as a “new paradigm” [15] (p. 353).
Complexity theory has been portrayed in two ways. The first places GST as the overarching
theory for complexity theory and CAS. For example, Yawson [9] presented complexity theory as a
Systems 2019, 7, 4 15 of 23

subset of systems theory, positioning GST as the grand theory and complexity theory, CAS, and
systems theory within its umbrella. However, later in the same research study, Yawson [9] identified
three interrelating elements to complexity theory that could not be accounted for by GST: non-linear
dynamics, chaos theory, and adaptation, providing some separation between GST and complexity
theory. Other literature has described complexity theory as a new science, indicating that complexity
theory was separate from other theories. This second portrayal identified GST and complexity theory
as two separate theories, with systems theory under GST and CAS residing under complexity theory.
Developed from scientific and mathematical fields, complexity science was influenced by the
“original systems sciences of cybernetics, information theory, and General Systems Theory” [73] (p.
7), while remaining a new science, separate from GST. For the current article, the authors adopted
Goldstein et al.’s [73] position that complexity theory is separate from GST with CAS and chaos
theory residing underneath complexity theory. The authors recognize that there is some overlap
between GST and CAS, as shown in Figure 3, however, still contend that complexity theory is
separate from GST and other theoretical system approaches (e.g., systems theory, cybernetics, and
theory of automata). For the social sciences, it is argued that future research should include
examinations of the CAS tenets (path dependency, history, non-linearity, emergence, irreducibility,
adaptability, balance between order and chaos, and self-organizing). The interactions within
organizations are complex and can be explained better through the lens of complexity theory and
CAS than by the other theoretical system approaches.

Figure 3. Complexity theory and theoretical system approaches

3. Addressing Complex Issues and Wicked Problems

In Figure 3, we demonstrate that the coverage of complexity theory involves chaos and CAS,
along with complexity theory tenets, some of which are shared with GST and systems theory. In the
following sections, we identify three future areas of study that are critical for the practice of social
science and the examination of social systems in which complexity theory and complexity thinking,
and not systems theory, will be required for scholars and scholar-practitioners as they navigate
through tomorrow’s complexity.

3.1. Wicked Problems

Problems are typically categorized as being simple, complex, or wicked [74]. Simple problems
have an identifiable problem and solution, whereas complex problems typically have an agreed upon
problem but differing potential solutions. For the third type of problem, wicked problems, there is
no agreed upon problem or solution. Churchman defined wicked problems as “that class of problems
which are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many decision makers
and clients with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are confusing”
(as cited in [75] (p. 200)).
Systems 2019, 7, 4 16 of 23

Wicked problems are made up of the following properties: indeterminacy in problem

formulation, non-definitiveness in problem solution, non-solubility, irreversible consequentiality,
and individual uniqueness [76]. Wicked problems have no definitive problem statement and hence
have no definitive solution, most often having no solution at all; wicked problems consist of
irreversible characteristics due to complexity, which adds to the complications caused by constantly
changing variables, and each wicked problem is each unique in its own context and structure.
Wickedness has been accepted in most disciplines today in such a manner that it has largely
become the norm, relating to human issues such as “global climate change, sustainability, stem cell
research and usage, resource management, terrorism, and urbanization” [76] (p. 2). Attempting to
address wicked problems using traditional linear methods leads to partial analysis, at best, and
deception that the problem has been solved [76]. These linear approaches have generated
dissatisfaction with decision making, planning, and implementation [77]. Such attempts have also
been described as trying to tame the untamable, in which the “inadequacy lies in the intellectual roots
of these traditional approaches and skill sets” [76] (p. 1). The problem with trying to address wicked
problems using the traditional linear methods that are applicable when using systems theory is that
these particular problems are resistant to linear protocols [76]. Instead, researchers have called for
awareness, acceptance, and new innovative strategies for addressing wicked problems [76]. One such
method, in opposition to the linear systems approach, is the adaptive, participatory, and
transdisciplinary method [76]. Other methods incorporate collaborative strategies that involve social
learning to address wicked problems. However, these collaborative strategies or interventions must
be structured using a complexity framework as opposed to a systems framework: “Social learning is
more likely to be successful if it remains a self-organizing, complex adaptive systems that coevolves
as stakeholders meet, interact, and inform one another’s actions” [78] (p. 16).
As a discipline, the social sciences would be better poised to address wicked problems using
complexity theory and complexity thinking methodologies in lieu of systems theory or systems
thinking. Systems theory has been identified as being incapable of addressing wicked problems:
“…addressing wicked problems calls … to forge new ways of thinking, leading, managing, and
organizing that recognize the complexity of the issues and processes” [77] (p. 722). The importance
of complexity theory to scholars and scholar-practitioners will increase as wicked problems become
more prevalent in their fields. This point is best illustrated by Roberts [78] (p. 16) when she stated the
following: “Wicked problems will be with us for some time.”

3.2. Decision Making and the Cynefin Framework

To better make sense of complexity in organizations, Kurtz and Snowden [79] developed what
they called the Cynefin framework. This framework originated in the knowledge management
discipline but later expanded into multiple fields (e.g., training, culture change, and leadership) and
has been used for multiple purposes (e.g., decisions, perspectives, and conflict) [79]. The original
framework was presented in a two-by-two matrix involving chaos, complex, knowable, and known
categories for each matrix (clockwise from the bottom left). In the middle of all four categories, Kurtz
and Snowden [79] identified the state of disorder that could be occupied by any of the four states as
they interact or transition between states [37]. Other representative models present the four categories
as being chaotic, complex, complicated, and simple (clockwise from the bottom left). This
representation is shown in Figure 4. Here, chaotic is best represented by unknowables, complex with
unknown unknowns, complicated with known unknowns, and simple with known knowns. This
construct of known represents things that are known to the collective, the entity of interest [79].
Chaotic states have been associated with having no cause and effect relationships, while complex
states were identified with CAS in which cause and effect relationships “are only coherent in
retrospect and do not repeat” [79] (p. 468). The left half of this framework is best associated with CAS
(see Figure 4). The state of complicated has been associated with having cause and effect relationships
and with systems thinking, while the simple state has been related to predictable cause and effect
relationships and best practices [79]. The right half of this framework is best associated with systems
theory. As shown in Figure 4, the overarching theory is complexity theory with CAS associated with
Systems 2019, 7, 4 17 of 23

complex and chaotic states and systems theory associated with complicated and simple states. The
disorder represents the fuzzy border between the states, meaning that some complicated states could
have a touch of complexity up to a point. Beyond that point, the state experiences a phase transition.
This point in which a phase transition occurs differs with each system dependent upon the initial
laws of complexity and unique composition. Once a state experiences a phase transition, the new
state is irreducible and cannot be reduced to its initial composition.
Potential uses for this sensemaking framework (Cynefin framework) include contextualization
and alternative history exercises (see [79] for additional examples). Contextualization is a
brainstorming exercise in which the framework is used to draw multiple perspectives around a
specific issue or event [79]. This exercise offers different solutions to specific issues by discussing how
solutions would be portrayed in each of the four states (i.e., chaotic, complex, complicated, and
simple). A second example includes an alternative history exercise, which involves discussing the
history of a specific entity or event, identifying when and why within the framework critical turning
points occurred [79].
This sensemaking framework provides a visual representation of how different states can
occupy independent and interdependent states, depending on the context. In applying this
sensemaking framework to contextualize problems of social systems, a shift from its current state
within the complicated domain (systems theory) to the complex domain (complexity theory and
CAS) to better prepare scholars and scholar-practitioners to address complexity and wicked problems
will be necessary.

Figure 4. Complexity theory and sensemaking.

4. New Directions for Social Systems Research

The following section outlines a few areas in which the social sciences could begin to include
more complexity theory research. The following sections include a discussion on expanding more
non-reductionistic methods and theories for social systems. Also, on the methods side, implementing
more research utilizing social network analysis along with some brief examples is discussed. Last is
a call for scholars and scholar-practitioners to begin developing more complexity-related theories.
These three recommended areas are presented only as a beginning, to start the process of moving the
social sciences into the field of complexity, providing scholars and scholar-practitioners with the tools
and new theories to operate in the current environment, which includes globalization, sustainability,
and wicked problems.

4.1. Incorporating More Non-Reductionistic Methods

Reductionistic methods have been identified as methods of reducing “complex phenomena into
elementary parts and processes” [11] (p. 409). Reductionistic methods work well as long as the
observed agents can be isolated to causality, identifying the relationship between a few variables at
Systems 2019, 7, 4 18 of 23

one point in time) [11]. Reductionistic methods involve linear models that come with specific
assumptions as identified by Jayanti:
Such assumptions include the premise that closed models are adequate for modeling
processes occurring in open systems, that models can be universally applied and do not
need to specify where and when they should be used, that a system is equal to the sum of
its parts, that time is reversible, that causality is linear, that future outcomes–like the future
itself–can be predicted, and that environments are relatively static and tend toward
equilibrium [80] (p. 103).
However, even with the successes that have been achieved in the fields of physics and biology
by using reductionistic methods, questions still remain [11]. Scientists have begun to understand that
the interactions within and among systems must also be observed and understood, resulting in too
many associations to be studied using simple causality methods. This problem was identified by von
Bertalanffy [11] (p. 411) as the problem of organized complexity: “There loomed the problem of
‘organized complexity,’ that is, of interrelations between many but not infinitely many components”.
Given today’s complexity, globalization, and interconnectedness, von Bertalanffy [11]
highlighted that reduction to simple particles using laws of physics is not practical. Rather, von
Bertalanffy [11] (p. 423) supplanted reductionism with “new categories of interaction, transaction,
organization, teleology, and so forth”, which also included developing newer techniques.

4.2. Network Analysis to Look for Relevant Nodes in a Network

Network analysis has grown in recent years due to advances in technology and new methods of
analysis. More specifically, social network analyses identify the “contacts, ties, and connections, the
group attachments and meetings, which relate one agent to another and so cannot be reduced to the
properties of the individual agents themselves” [81] (p. 3). In this description by Scott [81], social
network analysis can be used as a method to address complexity using connectionist methods as
opposed to traditional correlational techniques. Social network analysis is capable of identifying
patterns, clusters, and strong ties (interactions) from large sets of data linked to human behavior.
When viewing social activity through the lens of complexity theory, it is the patterns, clusters, and
interactions that we wish to examine further once they have been identified. Equated by some to
relational sociology, social network analysis encompasses a theory of the social world [81].
To examine the random nature of networks, Richardson [61] constructed an experiment that
simulated 100,000 networks each with 10 nodes, two inputs, and the same random rules of
association. In viewing these networks all irrelevant nodes (frozen or leaf nodes) were removed from
each network. This resulted in each network having roughly 60% of their nodes being relevant or
connected nodes [61]. Although this 60% estimate is not universal, it does, however, make the point
that relevant nodes within a network can be scrutinized for further analysis. Identifying relevant
nodes, patterns, or clusters begins the process of new discovery in social systems that were not
possible previously.
When attempting to optimize a system the rules of optimization need to be acknowledged. One
of these rules states the following: “Optimization of a system’s parts does not (necessarily) lead to an
optimal system, and vice versa” [82] (p. This short analysis). Given this rule, it would be essential to
identify which set of relevant nodes could be optimized in order to better optimize the whole system.
This supports the redundancy of potential command principle: “To control a complex system we must
first have a sufficiently good representation of it” [82] (p. Redundancy). Although the prediction of a
complex and open system is not entirely possible, in part, due to unknown conditions (e.g.,
environment, emergent properties), near prediction is dependent upon extracting meaningful
relationships [82]. Utilizing social network analysis provides scholars and scholar-practitioners with
the tools to not only analyze social systems, but also to optimize these systems.
Systems 2019, 7, 4 19 of 23

4.3. New Complexity-Related Theories

With an “apparent shift toward complexity-based inquiry in sustainability research” [83] (p.
Abstract), newer methods are being called to support this complexity-based inquiry. Porter and
Reischer [83] highlighted that, in the context of sustainability, reductionistic methodologies were least
effective. They called for researchers to move beyond the “standard boxes-and-arrows thinking” [83]
(p. Conceptual framework) when addressing complexity and wicked problems. In this context,
complex problems cannot be answered using simple linear epistemology [80].
In response to their own call, Porter and Reischer [83] situated sustainability as a CAS, defined
as being multilevel and ever-evolving. Much in the same manner as Porter and Reischer, [83]
identified sustainability as being a CAS, so too can many constructs currently being researched in the
social sciences (e.g., leadership, diversity, teams, workplace engagement) be categorized. Also, new
multilevel, networked, and complexity-situated theories need to be developed within the literature
in an effort to expand the theory and knowledge base of the social sciences, as well as to increase the
fields’ utility. Aside from this conceptualization, complexity-related theories need to be
operationalized prior to being tested [8,12], providing further support for a theory’s utility to the
field.
Additional calls have been found in the literature. For example, Yawson [9] highlighted the need
to re-conceptualize complexity theory for one’s discipline and noted that a conversation needs to
occur within each discipline (see also [84]). Theorizing within the social sciences to examine social
systems’ need to branch out to complexity thinking as a way of incorporating different
epistemologies or thought-universes, Jayanti [80] (p. 110) stated the following: “it may be necessary to
create entirely new models to more fully over-come the limits of Newtonian assumptions.” Similar
calls identified chaos and complexity theory as providing a means of developing new perspectives
for the social sciences to examine social systems, resulting in a better understanding of today’s
complex issues [8].

5. Conclusions
Systems theory has been identified as a foundational theory for some disciplines, providing a
uniform language for those disciplines [67]. However, this perspective has been challenged, and some
research has identified systems theory as being disconnected from research and practice: “Its
relevance and use in the practice… remains a myth” [9] (p. 70). These disciplines cannot remain
isolated in systems theory or systems thinking when much of the scientific community has already
begun transitioning to complexity theory. For example, Chandler, Rycroft-Malone, Hawkes, and
Noyes [85] (p. 462) highlighted complexity theory’s prevalence in the healthcare industry:
“Complexity theory has progressively entered the lexicon of healthcare sciences.” Foster [36] (p. 873)
indicated that “a new way of thinking about systems has come to prominence” in the field of
economics. Meadows [86] noted that trying to control complex systems would only lead to temporary
solutions, requiring complexity thinking.
Utilizing complexity theory in instances where GST does not work well, as identified in the
current article, better positions scholars and scholar-practitioners with the tools to address today’s
complex and wicked problems. This effort better prepares social scientists to explain observations of
interactions and relationships in today’s complex environment, providing them with the skills
necessary to complete in the global business realm [9]. Remaining competitive in the 21st century
requires a discipline to become innovative and adaptive as the “bar keeps rising” [73] (p. 1).
Within the literature presented, organizations can be reviewed to determine their functionality
by incorporating CAS [22,28,29,37,53,87]. Additionally, leadership (e.g., leader–follower, adaptive
leadership, and complexity leadership theory) has been associated with complexity theory and CAS
[28,45,70,88], along with higher education [1] and organizational learning [26,34], among others. Also,
complexity theory has already been applied to a variety of disciplines: “knowledge management,
strategy, management, training, cultural change…. leadership, customer relationship management,
and supply chain management” [79] (p. 467). Unfortunately, many disciplines within the social
sciences have yet to begin investigations through the lens of complexity theory. It will become critical
Systems 2019, 7, 4 20 of 23

for today’s leaders to begin thinking along the lines of complexity theory. Future scholars and
scholar-practitioners will need to think and act differently [87] when facing complexity. Adopting
complexity theory for the social sciences can aid the field in addressing tomorrow’s problems when
investigating social systems:
Complexity is poised to help current and future leaders make sense of advanced
technology, globalization, intricate markets, cultural change, and much more. In short, the
science of complexity can help all of us address the challenges and opportunities we face in
a new epoch of human history [87] (p. Understanding Complexity).

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.R.T. and R.M.B.; methodology, J.R.T. and R.M.B.; investigation,
J.R.T. and R.M.B; data curation, J.R.T. and R.M.B.; original draft preparation, J.R.T. and R.M.B.; and review and
editing of the final manuscript, J.R.T. and R.M.B.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Davis, A.P.; Dent, E.; Wharff, D. A conceptual model of systems thinking leadership in community colleges.
Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 2015, 28, 333–353. doi:10.1007/s11213-015-9340-9.
2. Tong, Y.K.; Arvey, R. Managing complexity via the competing values framework. J. Manag. Dev. 2015, 34,
653–673. doi:10.1108/jmd-04-2014-0029.
3. Ma, A.M.J.; Osula, B. The Tao of complex adaptive systems (CAS). Chin. Manag. Stud. 2011, 5, 94–110.
doi:10.1108/17506141111118480.
4. deMattos, P.; Miller, D.; Park, E. Decision making in trauma centers from the standpoint of complex
adaptive systems. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 1549–1569. doi:10.1108/00251741211266688.
5. Aritua, B.; Smith, N.; Bower, D. Construction Client multi-projects—A complex adaptive systems
perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2009, 27, 72–79. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.02.005.
6. Gregory, A.; Atkins, J.P.; Burdon, D.; Elliott, M. A problem structuring method for ecosystem-based
management: The DPSIR modelling process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2013, 227, 558–569.
doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2012.11.020.
7. Westhorp, G. Using complexity-consistent theory for evaluating complex systems. Evaluation 2012, 18, 405–
420. doi:10.1177/1356389012460963.
8. Haslberger, A. The complexities of expatriate adaptation. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2005, 15, 160–180.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2005.07.001.
9. Yawson, R.M. Systems theory and thinking as a foundational theory in human resource development—A
myth or reality? Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2013, 12, 53–85. doi:10.1177/1534484312461634.
10. Kast, F.E.; Rosenzweig, J.E. General system theory: Applications for organization and management. Acad.
Manag. J. 1972, 15, 447–465. doi:10.2307/255141.
11. von Bertalanffy, L. The history and status of general systems theory. Acad. Manag. J. 1972, 15, 407–426.
doi:10.5465/255139.
12. Caws, P. General systems theory, its past and potential. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2015, 32, 514–521.
doi:10.1002/sres.2353.
13. Gilley, J.; Eggland, S.; Gilley, A.M. Principles of Human Resource Development, 2nd ed.; Basic Books: New
York, NY, USA, 2002, ISBN 9780738206042.
14. Swanson, R.A.; Holton, E., III. Foundations of Human Resource Development; Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco,
CA, USA, 2001, ISBN 1442961961.
15. Schneider, M.; Somers, M. Organizations as complex adaptive systems: Implications of complexity theory
for leadership research. Leadersh. Q. 2006, 17, 351–365. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.006.
16. Wang, T.-W. From general system theory to total quality management. J. Am. Acad. Bus. Camb. 2004, 4, 394–
400.
17. Koopmans, M. Perspectives on complexity, its definition and applications in the field. Complicity 2017, 14,
16–35.
Systems 2019, 7, 4 21 of 23

18. Hammond, D. Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901–1972): General systems theory. In The Science of Synthesis:
Exploring the Social Implications of General Systems Theory; University Press of Colorado: Boulder, CO, USA,
2010; pp. 103–142, ISBN 1457109875.
19. Richardson, K. Systems theory and complexity: Part 2 [Forum]. Emerg. Complex. Organ. 2004, 6, 77–82.
20. Yorks, L.; Nicolaides, A. A conceptual model for developing mindsets for strategic insight under conditions
of complexity and high uncertainty. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2012, 11, 182–202.
doi:10.1177/1534484312439055.
21. Larson, C.S. Evidence of shared aspects of complexity science and quantum phenomena. Cosm. Hist. J. Nat.
Soc. Philos. 2016, 12, 160–171.
22. Aagaard, P. The challenge of adaptive capability in public organizations: A case study of complexity in
crime prevention. Public Manag. Rev. 2012, 14, 731–746. doi:10.1080/14719037.2011.642626.
23. Albert, D.; Kreutzer, M.; Lechner, C. Resolving the paradox of interdependency and strategic renewal in
activity systems. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2015, 40, 210–234. doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0177.
24. Anderson, A.; Dodd, S.D.; Jack, S. Entrepreneurship as connecting: Some implications for theorising and
practice. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 958–971. doi:10.1108/00251741211227708.
25. Pslek, P.E. Some emerging principles for managers of complex adaptive systems. 1995. Available online:
http://www.directedcreativity.com/pages/ComplexityWP.html (accessed on 20 November 2011).
26. Antonacopoulou, E.; Chiva, R. The social complexity of organizational learning: The dynamics of learning
and organizing. Manag. Learn. 2007, 38, 277–295. doi:10.1177/1350507607079029.
27. Sherman, H.J.; Schultz, R. Open Boundaries: Creating Business Innovation Through Complexity; Da Capo Press:
Reading, MA, USA, 1998, ISBN 0738201553.
28. Beck, T.; Plowman, D.A. Temporary, emergent interorganizational collaboration in unexpected
circumstances: A study of the Columbia space shuttle response effort. Organ. Sci. 2016, 25, 1234–1252.
doi:10.1287/orsc.2013.0888.
29. Boal, K.B.; Schultz, P.L. Storytelling, time, and evolution: The role of strategic leadership in complex
adaptive systems. Leadersh. Q. 2007, 18, 411–428. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.008.
30. Bode, C.; Wagner, S.M. Structural Drivers of upstream supply chain complexity and the frequency of
supply chain disruptions. J. Oper. Manag. 2015, 36, 215–228. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2014.12.004.
31. Borzillo, S.; Kaminska-Labbe, R. Unravelling the dynamics of knowledge creation in communities of
practice though complexity theory lenses. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 2011, 9, 353–366.
doi:10.1057/kmrp.2011.13.
32. Bovaird, T. Emergent strategic management and planning mechanisms in complex adaptive systems—The
case of the UK best value initiative. Public Manag. Rev. 2008, 10, 319–340. doi:10.1080/14719030802002741.
33. Waldrop, M. Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos; Penguin: Harmondsworth, UK,
1994, ISBN 9780671872342.
34. Chiva, R.; Ghauri, P.; Alegre, J. Organizational learning, innovation and internationalization: A complex
system model. Br. J. Manag. 2014, 25, 687–705. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12026.
35. Crawford, C.; Kreiser, P. Corporate entrepreneurship strategy: Extending the integrative framework
through the lens of complexity science. Small Bus. Econ. 2015, 45, 403–423. doi:10.1007/s11187-015-9637-1.
36. Foster, J. From simplistic to complex systems in economics. Camb. J. Econ. 2005, 29, 873–892.
doi:10.1093/cje/bei083.
37. Hammer, R.J.; Edwards, J.S.; Tapinos, E. Examining the strategy development process through the lens of
complex adaptive systems theory. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2012, 63, 909–919. doi:10.1057/jors.2011.97.
38. Hanseth, O.; Lyytinen, K. Design theory for dynamic complexity in information infrastructures: The case
of building internet. J. Inf. Technol. 2010, 25, 1–19. doi:10.1057/jit.2009.19.
39. He, Z.; Rayman-Bacchus, L.; Wu, Y. Self-organization of industrial clustering in a transition economy: A
proposed framework and case study evidence from China. Res. Policy 2011, 40, 1280–1294.
doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.008.
40. Levy, S. Artificial Life: The Quest for a New Creation; Penguin Sciences Series: New York, NY, USA, 1993,
ISBN 9780679743897.
41. Hearnshaw, E.J.S.; Wilson, M.M.J. A complex network approach to supply chain network theory. Int. J.
Oper. Prod. Manag. 2013, 33, 442–469. doi:10.1108/01443571311307343.
Systems 2019, 7, 4 22 of 23

42. Bradbury, R.H. Futures, predictions and other foolishness. In Complexity and Ecosystem Management: The
Theory and Practice of Multi-Agent Simulations; Janssen, M.A., Ed.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2002; pp.
48–62. ISBN 178195724X.
43. Holland, J. Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus 1992, 121, 17–30.
44. Honebein, P.C. Transmergent learning and the creation of extraordinary educational experiences. Educ.
Technol. 2009, 49, 27–34.
45. Hunt, J.G.; Osborn, R.N.; Boal, K.B. The architecture of managerial leadership: Stimulation and channeling
of organizational emergence. Leadersh. Q. 2009, 20, 503–516. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.010.
46. Jones, R.; Corner, J. Seeing the forest and the trees: A complex adaptive systems lens for mentoring. Hum.
Relat. 2012, 65, 391–411. doi:10.1177/0018726711430556.
47. Lauser, B. Post-merger integration and change processes from a complexity perspective. Balt. J. Manag.
2010, 5, 6–27. doi:10.1108/17465261011016531.
48. Lindberg, C.; Schneider, M. Combating infections at Maine Medical Center: Insights into complexity-
informed leadership from positive deviance. Leadership 2013, 9, 229–253. doi:10.1177/1742715012468784.
49. Luoma, M. A play of four arenas—How complexity can serve management development. Manag. Learn.
2006, 37, 101–123. doi:10.1177/1350507606058136.
50. Waddock, S.; Meszoely, G.M.; Waddell, S.; Dentoni, D. The complexity of wicked problems in large scale
change. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2015, 28, 993–1012. doi:10.1108/jocm-08-2014-0146.
51. Rhodes, M.L. Complexity and emergence in public management—the case of urban regeneration in
Ireland. Public Manag. Rev. 2008, 10, 361–379. doi:10.1080/14719030802002717.
52. Kelly, S.; Alison, M.A. The Complexity Advantage; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1999, ISBN
0070014000.
53. Strathern, M.; McGlade, J. The Social Face of Complexity Science: A Festschrift for Professor Peter M. Allen;
Emergent Publications: Litchfield, AZ, USA, 2014, ISBN 9781938158131.
54. Campbell-Hunt, C. Complexity in practice. Hum. Relat. 2007, 60, 793–823. doi:10.1177/0018726707079202.
55. Mowles, C. Complex, but not quite complex enough: The turn to the complexity sciences in evaluation
scholarship. Evaluation 2014, 20, 160–175. doi:10.1177/1356389014527885.
56. Martin, J.A.; Eisenhardt, K.M. Rewiring: Cross-business-unit collaboration in multibusiness organizations.
Acad. Manag. J. 2010, 53, 265–301. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.49388795.
57. Butler, M.J.R.; Allen, P.M. Understanding policy implementation processes as self-organizing systems.
Public Manag. Rev. 2008, 10, 421–440. doi:10.1080/14719030802002923.
58. Burgelman, R.A.; Grove, A.S. Let chaos reign, then rein in chaos-repeatedly: Managing strategic dynamics
for corporate longevity. Strat. Manag. J. 2007, 28, 965–979. doi:10.1002/smj.625.
59. Manuj, I.; Sahin, F. A model of supply chain and supply chain decision-making complexity. Int. J. Phys.
Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2011, 41, 511–549. doi:10.1108/09600031111138844.
60. Gleick, J. Chaos: Making a New Science; Penguin Books: New York, NY, USA, 2008, ISBN 0143113453.
61. Richardson, K. Systems Theory and Complexity: Part 1 [Forum]. Emerg. Complex. Organ. 2004, 6, 75–79.
62. Bolstorff, P.A. Supply chain: A framework for expanding the human resource development professional’s
role in technology implementations. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 2002, 4, 533–549. doi:10.1177/152342202237527.
63. Hamstra, C. Complexity storytelling: The science of complexity within the art of communication. Emerg.
Complex. Organ. 2017, 19, 1–6.
64. Plowman, D.A.; Baker, L.T.; Beck, T.E.; Kulkarni, M.; Solansky, S.T.; Travis, D.V. Radical change
accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change. Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 515–543.
doi:10.5465/amj.2007.25525647.
65. Raisio, H.; Lundström, N. Managing chaos: Lessons from movies on chaos theory. Adm. Soc. 2017, 49, 296–
315. doi:10.1177/0095399714541269.
66. Richardson, K. Managing complex organizations: Complexity thinking and the science and art of
management. Emerg. Complex. Organ. 2008, 10, 13–26.
doi:10.emerg/10.17357.c27fa1fd443ab603eea744131b6b79f6.
67. Holte, J. Chaos: The New Science; University Press of America: Lanham, MD, USA, 1993, ISBN
9780819189332.
68. Jacobs, R. System theory and HRD. In Handbook of Human Resource Development; Chalofsky N., Rocco, T.,
Morris, M.L., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014, ISBN 1118839897.
Systems 2019, 7, 4 23 of 23

69. Proches, C.G.; Bodhanya, S. Exploring stakeholder interactions through the lens of complexity theory:
Lessongs from the sugar industry. Qual. Quant. 2015, 49, 2507–2525. doi:10.1007/s11135-014-0124-6.
70. Uhl-Bien, M.; Marion, R. Complexity leadership in bureaucratic forms of organizing: A meso model.
Leadersh. Q. 2009, 20, 631–650. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.007.
71. Richardson, K.A. Thinking about Complexity: Grasping the Continuum through Criticism and Pluralism;
Emergent Publishing: Litchfield Park, AZ, USA, 2010, ISBN 0984216456.
72. Waldrop, M.M. Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos; Simon & Schuster
Paperbacks: New York, NY, USA, 1992, ISBN 0671767895.
73. Goldstein, J.; Hazy, J.; Lichtenstein, B. Complexity and the Nexus of Leadership: Leveraging Non-Linear Science
to Create Ecologies of Innovation; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2010, ISBN 0230107710.
74. Rogers, S.M.; Tamkee, P.; Summers, B.; Balabahadra, S.; Marks, M.; Kingsley, D.M.; Schluter, D. Genetic
signature of adaptive peak shift in threespine stickleback. Evolution 2012, 66, 2439–2450. doi:10.1111/j.1558-
5646.2012.01622.x.
75. McCall, R.; Burge, J. Untangling wicked problems. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 2016, 30, 200–210.
doi:10.1017/s089006041600007x.
76. Xiang, W-N. Working with wicked problems in socio-ecological systems: Awareness, acceptance, and
adaptation [Editorial]. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 110, 1-4. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.11.006.
77. Head, B.W.; Alford, J. Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Adm. Soc. 2015,
47, 711–739. doi:10.1177/0095399713481601.
78. Roberts, N. Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. Int. Public Manag. Rev. 2000, 1, 1–19.
79. Kurtz, C.F.; Snowden, D.J. The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated
world. IBM Syst. J. 2003, 42, 462–483. doi:10.1147/sj.423.0462.
80. Jayanti, E.B. Through a different lens: A survey of linear epistemological assumptions underlying HRD
models. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2011, 10, 101–114. doi:10.1177/1534484310386753.
81. Scott, J. Social Network Analysis: A Handbook; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2000, ISBN 0761963391.
82. Richardson, K. Systems theory and complexity: Part 3 [Forum]. Emerg. Complex. Organ. 2005, 7, 104–114.
doi:10.emerg/10.17357.ae75080c555c98ad3716429e1632b3ec.
83. Porter, T. Reischer, R. We can’t get here from there: Sustainability from complexity vs. conventional
perspectives. Emerg. Complex. Organ. 2018, 1, 1–8.
doi:10.emerg/10.17357.0d3dd494df633eb4018f6abde38fd3ee.
84. Tkachenko, O.; Ardichvili, A. Cultural-historical activity theory’s relevance to HRD: A review and
application. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2017, 16, 135–157.
85. Chandler, J.; Rycroft-Malone, J.; Hawkes, C.; Noyes, J. Application of simplified Complexity Theory
concepts for healthcare social systems to explain the implementation of evidence into practice. J. Adv. Nurs.
2016, 72, 461–480. doi:10.1111/jan.12815.
86. Meadows, D.H. Thinking in Systems: A Primer; Chelsea Green Publishing: White River Junction, VT, USA,
2008, ISBN 978-1-6035-8148-6.
87. Snowden, D.; Boone, M. A leader’s framework for decision making. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2007, 85, 68–76.
88. Uhl-Bien, M.; Marion, R.; McKelvey, B. Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the
industrial age to the knowledge era. Leadersh. Q. 2007, 18, 298–318. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).