Cameron Wsu 0251E 12401.Pdf (1.008Mb)

REWILDING THE ORGANIZATION: AN EXPLORATION OF THE ECOSYSTEM

APPROACH APPLIED TO HUMAN INSTITUTIONS

RICHARD JOHN CAMERON

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY School of the Environment

MAY 2018

To the Faculty of Washington State University:

The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of RICHARD JOHN CAMERON find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted.

______Allan S. Felsot, Ph.D., Chair

______James R. Pratt, Ph.D.

______Yonas Demissie, Ph.D.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This paper would not have been possible without the support and contributions of a number of individuals.

Dr. Akram Hossain has been a true mentor throughout my educational career and was instrumental in providing guidance and assistance beyond the call of duty. My career has been significantly enhanced because of the role he took in my life and I am eternally grateful.

Dr. Allan Felsot, my committee chair, gave me an opportunity when I thought I had none and provided wonderful insight that helped me connect the many concepts that led to the completion of this work. He also helped me in ways that exceed my understanding. I am grateful beyond words.

My other committee members, Dr. Dick Pratt and Dr. Yonas Demissie, were also instrumental in providing insight and guidance and helping me connect the threads that allowed the many disparate elements to be pulled together. I appreciate their help and kindness throughout this ordeal.

My educational journey and my opportunity to perform world-class research at PNNL would not have been possible without Russ Treat. He believed in me and helped me envision my professional career. I have been trying to pay the great debt I owe him by mentoring and instructing the next generation of engineers.

iii

REWILDING THE ORGANIZATION: AN EXPLORATION OF THE ECOSYSTEM

APPROACH APPLIED TO HUMAN INSTITUTIONS

Abstract

by Richard John Cameron, Ph.D. Washington State University May 2018

Chair: Allan S. Felsot

From the dawn of humanity, humans have been watching and learning from nature. We are increasingly turning to nature for inspiration, especially in the sciences and engineering where we regularly practice biomimicry and develop new materials and processes. However, we use our own human constructs for the way we structure and operate our organizations. This has resulted in organizations which typically suffer from dysfunction and fail when presented with disruptive events. Natural ecosystems offer a model that has worked for millennia in terms of high functioning and resiliency to disruptions. Human attempts to manage natural environments have historically used command-and-control approaches that have not worked well. However, the ecosystem approach now being utilized for enhancing natural environments is showing promising results. Complexity science is developing a means of incorporating some aspects that make ecosystems work so well, but implementing complexity science into our organizations has proven challenging. This paper explores the potential utilization of the ecosystem approach applied to human organizations in terms of structure and processes including a clear sense of purpose; adaptability; individual freedom; interconnectedness;

iv diversity; competition and cooperation; boundaries, corridors, and ecotones; keystone species; feedback loops; ecological time; succession and phases; and embracing messiness and uncertainty. Such an ecosystem approach is expected to lead to rewilding the organization to make it higher functioning and increasing the resilience. A case study is included which explores the ecosystem approach applied to engineering research project teams at a federal research laboratory.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... iii

ABSTRACT ...... iv

CHAPTER

1. BACKGROUND ...... 1

2. OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH NATURE ...... 4

Nature as inspiration ...... 6

Human disdain for nature ...... 8

3. OVERVIEW OF ECOSYSTEMS ...... 12

Ecosystem Aspects ...... 14

Trophic Structure ...... 14

Keystone Species ...... 15

Habitat and Biodiversity ...... 16

Biological Processes ...... 18

Ecological Successions and Phases ...... 19

Ecotones, Boundaries, and Wildlife Corridors ...... 23

Ecosystem Resilience ...... 24

Definition of Resilience ...... 24

Why Ecosystems are Resilient ...... 26

Resilience Compared to Sustainability ...... 27

Resilience Compared to Resistance ...... 28

The Ecosystem Approach ...... 29

What is the Ecosystem Approach? ...... 29

How Does the Metaphor Apply? ...... 32

4. OVERVIEW OF COMPLEXITY SCIENCE ...... 36

Outcomes of Complexity ...... 41

Self-Organization ...... 41

Emergence ...... 42

Resilience ...... 43

The Challenge of Applying Complexity Science ...... 44

5. OVERVIEW OF HUMAN INSTITUTIONS ...... 48

6. APPLYING THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO HUMAN INSTITUTIONS ...... 55

What the Ecosystem Approach is Not ...... 61

Implementing the Ecosystem Approach in Human Organizations ...... 62

The Applied Ecosystem Approach ...... 63

Clear Sense of Purpose ...... 64

Adaptability ...... 67

The Individual ...... 68

Interconnectedness/Interdependence/Communication ...... 74

Diversity ...... 76

Competition and Cooperation ...... 78

Boundaries, Corridors, and Ecotones ...... 80

Keystone Species ...... 83

vii

Feedback Loops ...... 85

Ecological Time ...... 88

Succession and Phases ...... 95

Embracing Messiness, Uncertainty, and Ambiguity ...... 97

Outcomes from Implementing the Ecosystem Approach ...... 108

Rewilding ...... 108

Resilience ...... 110

7. CASE STUDY: APPLICATION OF THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH ...... 116

8. SUMMARY ...... 131

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 133

viii

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my mom, Overa Cameron, and my dad, Glenn Cameron. They instilled in me the love of learning and the drive to reach my potential. They would have been so proud.

CHAPTER ONE

BACKGROUND

How we structure and operate our human organizations is a topic of great interest. A search on Amazon.com for Business Management listed over 600,000 books (April 4, 2018). There are a similar dizzying number of articles, blogs, seminars, etc. on this topic. Fradette and Michaud

(1998) noted: “Many a forest has been felled of late to print the avalanche of books and articles advising us how to fix up and make over our organizations.” Why? There are numerous reasons. Certainly one prevalent driver is the ever-tightening squeeze-on-the-turnip for more profits. But it cannot be denied that dysfunction is rampant in most corporations and other human institutions. We know this intuitively and it is well documented in the literature and in surveys (cf. Aversa, 2010; Barwick, 2008). Nearly all modern day organizations utilize some form of a linear, mechanistic, command-and-control approach to organizational structure and processes (cf. Thompson, 2008) and this is at the heart of the problem. We humans crave control – though it often is a false illusion. Gilbert (2007) suggested: "Our desire to control is so powerful, and the feeling of being in control so rewarding, that people often act as though they can control the uncontrollable." Or, as put forth by Lehrhaupt, (2001). “Trying to maintain control is like trying to determine where a snowflake will fall.” Control is fallacy. So is believing our organizations can reach some sort of plateau and function in a steady-state or equilibrium condition. Everything is changing all the time – whether we can see it (or even acknowledge it).

Nature works differently. Ecosystems are constantly changing and adapting, always functioning in a non-equilibrium manner where change is the order of the day. Often, the changes are small and the ecosystem has the capacity to absorb each minor disturbance and

1 continue functioning with very little being different. But sometimes, moderate to severe disturbances happen, such as a flood or a wildfire, and major changes take place, testing the resilience of the ecosystem. For the most part, over time the ecosystem recovers. But we must understand recovery does not mean a return to some equilibrium point. Rather, the ecosystem is changed, but the ecosystem returns to being fully functional. Several factors contribute to this resilience, such as diversity of species and interconnectedness. Altogether, though, it is what nature has adapted to do over many millions of years. And we would do well to understand it and consider how it might make our institutions more resilient and higher functioning.

That is the fundamental point – we have moved from organizations in tune with natural processes (such as tribes and indigenous peoples) to those who still lived close to the land and maintained (mostly) sustainable practices to the modern model of trying to control nature and operating our organizations like machines. Our current agricultural practices are not sustainable over the long term and neither are our institutions. From both, we attempt to maximize yield in the short term (i.e., produce or profits) by emphasizing efficiency over effectiveness, but this comes at a significant cost. We have lost the resiliency found in ecosystems. An upset condition in an ecosystem changes the landscape, but the ecosystem returns – in time – to full functionality (though this is not true of every ecosystem every time because there are always exceptions).

With our monocrop/fertilizer and maximum-sustainable-yield approach, we realize high returns in the short term – but we leave ourselves vulnerable to any upset condition. This same attitude permeates our organizations: the methodology we employ to maximize profits comes

2 at the cost of the loss of resilience – and the loss of resilience eventually leads to the end of the organization. Connor (1998) provided this definition: “Resilience is the ability to absorb large amounts of disruptive change without a significant drop in quality and productivity standards.”

There are a handful of organizations who have taken a radically different approach (e.g., Visa

– see Hock, 2000; Zappos – see Denning, 2014) who embrace a more democratic, self- organizational approach with a long-term focus. They choose to embrace diversity and empower the individual; they emphasize interconnectedness; they give up some control to realize the great gains associated with allowing the participants to naturally evolve the processes. It can be argued these approaches are variations on the way in which ecosystems function. As such, perhaps it is time to turn to nature for guidance and seek a more natural state of functioning for our organizations. Let us be reminded that Albert Einstein implored us to “Look deep, deep into nature and then you will understand everything better.”

CHAPTER II

OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH NATURE

Human recognition of the need to cooperate with nature is well established – McClelland

(1998) quoted Zeno from 335 B.C.E.: “The goal of life is living in agreement with nature.” The

English poet, William Wordsworth, compelled us to “Come forth into the light of things, let nature be your teacher.” In a book entitled Nature (1836), Ralph Waldo Emerson reflected that

“behind nature, throughout nature, spirit is present.” The spirit of nature has always called to us and inspired us. In our homes and on our office walls, it is common for us to hang photos and paintings of nature scenes: mountains and forests and streams and beaches and meadows.

We are drawn to nature. Consider the lure of the National Parks and National Forests in

America. Perhaps some of that draw is simply to get away from the rat race of everyday life and breathe clean air, but it is far, far more. Nature nurtures us. Nature sustains us. And nature is good for us.

John Muir, the naturalist and philosopher who in the latter part of the 19th century helped

America see the need for preserving its wilderness areas, had much to say about our human relationship with nature. Famously he is quoted as inspiring us to “Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature’s peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves.”

David Abram (as quoted in Bekoff, 2014) went so far as to suggest “Bereft of contact with wilderness, the human mind loses its coherence, and the human heart ceases to beat.” This is backed up by research – Kühn et al. (2017) recently found that older people living near wooded

4 landscape showed better amygdala integrity, suggesting that living near a forest may help our brains stay healthy as we age and Kahn et al. (2009) documented that “studies have shown even minimal connection with nature—such as looking at it through a window—can promote the healing of hospitalized patients, can increase health in the workplace, and can reduce the frequency of sickness in prisons.” Selhub and Logan (2014 and 2016) provided backing research: “Scientific studies have shown that natural environments can have remarkable benefits for human health. Natural environments are more likely to promote positive emotions, and viewing and walking in nature have been associated with heightened physical and mental energy.” Richard Louv (2011), in his book entitled The Nature Principle, argued:

“The more high-tech we become, the more nature we need.” Louv also noted: “In the twenty- first century, ironically, an outsized faith in technology – a turning away from nature – may well be the outdated dogma of our time . . . The future will belong to the nature-smart – those individuals, families, businesses, and political leaders who develop a deeper understanding of nature.”

From the dawn of humanity, we have been watching and learning from nature. Temple

Grandin, the well-known animal behaviorist (with Johnson, 2006) suggested early humans became successful homo sapiens because they learned to act and think like the wolves with whom they cohabitated. Or, as Francis Bacon put it, we humans have tried to “torture nature for her secrets.” We have Jane Jacobs (2001) to remind us that "human beings exist wholly within nature as part of a natural order." Even E.O. Wilson (in Rothschild, 1990), the famous

Harvard professor who built his career studying ant colony behavior, concluded: “The key

5 instrument of the creative imagination is analogy.” Analogs from nature will help inform our future.

Nature as Inspiration

We frequently turn to nature for all types of inspiration. In Proverbs 6:6-8 of the Bible, it is stated: "Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! It has no commander, no overseer or ruler, yet it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest.”

This turn to nature for inspiration is especially true in the sciences where we regularly practice biomimicry (or biomimetics) and develop new materials and processes based on some artifact or capability from nature, such as medical ultrasound imaging imitating the echolocation of bats. Harvard University has the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired

Engineering. The value of the lessons nature has to offer is beginning to gain significant traction with international conferences (see Mira and Alvarez, 2007) and in the scientific and business press: for example, the journal Bioinspiration and Biomimetics (2009) stated

“Scientists and engineers are increasingly turning to nature for inspiration.” There are numerous similar journals dedicated to these concepts (e.g., Journal of Biomimetics,

Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering and Robotics and Biomimetics). Another recently launched journal is Swarm Intelligence (Springer) that describes itself as “the principal peer reviewed publication dedicated to reporting research and new developments in this multidisciplinary field . . . Emphasis is given to such topics as the modeling and analysis of collective biological systems; application of biological swarm intelligence models to real-world

6 problems; and theoretical and empirical research in ant colony optimization, particle swarm optimization, swarm robotics, and other swarm intelligence algorithms.”

Thompson (2008) wrote about high-performance ‘bioteams’ of people based on nature’s principles. [Thompson used as analogs single-cell and multicellular organisms, the human immune system, the nervous system, micro-organisms such as bacteria and social insects (ants, bees and termites), jellyfish, geese, monkeys, dolphins, big cats, forests, rivers, ecosystems, the

Earth as Gaia, etc.] Harman (2014) described biomimicry and innovation inspired by nature as did Benyus (1997). Bentley (2001) provided perspective on how nature is affecting our technology and lives. Ausubel and Harpignies (2004) suggested ‘operating instructions’ based on nature. More relevant to this paper, Tazzi and De Rossi (2014) and Mathews (2011) addressed biomimicry as applied to organizations.

The popular literature also has many books and articles that explore what we can apply from specific animals and other features from nature. Ekekwe (2010) described lessons from ants;

Towery (1997) wrote about what wolves can teach us; Shireman and Kiuchi (2001) told us business lessons to be learned from the rain forest; there are many books about what we can learn from bees, such as O’Malley (2010); Tautz (2008); Niven (2012); Winston (2014); Heinrich

(1979); and Seeley (2010); swarm strategy as discussed by Miller (2010); Fisher (2009);

Gaudiano et al. (2003); Krause, Ruxton, and Krause (2009); Krause et al. (2011) and Seeley et al.

(2012); even horses are looked at for what lessons they can suggest by Rickards (2000) and also crows by Haupt (2009) and Marzluff and Angell (2012).

Human Disdain for Nature

As much as we humans seem drawn to nature, we also demonstrate a certain dichotomous relationship with it. We appreciate open meadows and babbling brooks, mature forests and majestic mountains. But we fear many other aspects, such as the unknown forces lurking in the darkness of the forest primeval. It is foreboding. It is wild. It is untamed. And we exercise a certain disdain for nature’s apparent disorderliness. Thus, we feel a desire to control nature and make it do our bidding. The popular nonfiction writer John McPhee has a book titled The

Control of Nature (1989) in which he told stories where human engineering has attempted to exercise control over nature (and McPhee goes on to explain how nature eventually overcomes the human attempts at control). This always seems to be the case if we consider a long timeframe: Nature recovers by rewilding and we would do well to incorporate the concept.

We would also do well to not continue to use nature’s riches in non-sustainable ways. We have known this for a long time, but we do not always practice what we know, even when we have known it for a long time.

George Perkins Marsh is considered by some to be America’s first environmentalist. Wulf

(2015) suggested the devastation due to deforestation from logging led Marsh to state: “Man is everywhere a disturbing agent” and led Marsh to write a book titled Man and Nature (1864), which “told a story of destruction and avarice, of extinction and exploitation, as well as of depleted soil and torrential floods.” Similarly, Henry David Thoreau (1861) offered “But most men, it seems to me, do not care for Nature and would sell their share in all her beauty, as long as they live, for a stated sum – many for a glass of rum.”

More than a hundred years later, the alarm bell is still ringing. E.O. Wilson (as quoted in

Bekoff, 2014) reminded us “We have conquered the biosphere and laid waste to it like no other species in the history of life. We are unique in what we have wrought.” But as much as we envision our human actions to control nature so important and permanent, we need to be reminded of nature’s resilience and how it will recover because of this inherent attribute.

However, we humans don’t share this attribute of resilience in the way we structure and operate our organizations. And we need to understand our place in nature, where we are perhaps not even as important to resilience as the insects we try to swat away. This was suggested by E.O. Wilson (as quoted in Bekoff, 2014): “If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos.”

Pennisi (2015), discussed the work of Lyons et al. (2016), and noted some researchers say human’s impact on earth’s ecosystems has “ushered in a new geologic time period: the

Anthropocene.” The question is when this period can be considered as starting, with arguments ranging from the start of the Industrial Age to as early as when humans started farming. The key point, though, is that human activities appear to have virtually always made a proportionately large impact to ecosystems. Though perhaps not entirely accurate, this sentiment is captured by Pennisi, who wrote: “Long before the Industrial Age, humans had broken up relationships among plants and animals that had been stable for millions of years.”

Theodore Roosevelt, on May 13, 1908, had this say about our wanton use of the land around us: “We have become great because of the lavish use of our resources and we have just reason to be proud of our growth. But the time has come to inquire seriously what will happen when

9 our forests are gone, when the coal, the iron, the oil, and the gas are exhausted, when the soils shall have been still further impoverished and washed into the streams, polluting the rivers, denuding the fields, and obstructing navigation? These questions do not relate only to the next century or to the next generation. It is time for us now as a Nation to exercise the same reasonable foresight in dealing with our great natural resources that would be shown by any prudent man in conserving and widely using the property which contains the assurance of well- being for himself and his children.”

Yet, we as humans often think we somehow know better than nature. In a display of true hubris, we have even applied our own organizational approaches to try to solve our challenges with the natural environment [cf. Reinhardt (2000) Down to Earth: Applying Business Principles to Environmental Management].

The Deep Ecology movement has emerged that counters this disdain for nature and considers the importance of the subtle balance of complex, interconnected relationships where individual beings are dependent on the existence of other individuals within ecosystems and ecosystems are dependent upon other ecosystems [cf. Devall and Sessions, 1985] and some authors have looked at applying this concept to organizations [cf. Thenatureofbusiness.org,

2015]. It should be noted the concept of ‘balance’ in nature is a perspective which may not exist in the terms we normally consider. Pimm (1992) explored this idea and looked at it from various concepts of balance (i.e., stability, resilience, variability, persistence, and resistance) and concluded such ‘balance’ depends on the scale of the perspective and the duration over which such balance is considered.

The challenge facing us is to take the lessons from nature to understand how ecosystems function and integrate such information into how we structure and operate our organizations to realize the ‘good tidings’ to which John Muir referred.

CHAPTER THREE

OVERVIEW OF ECOSYSTEMS

The concept of the ecosystem came together over a long period of time. Alexander Von

Humboldt (1769 – 1859) was a Prussian naturalist who made helpful observations two centuries ago. According to Wulf (2015), “Humboldt revolutionized the way we see the natural world. He found connections everywhere. Nothing, not even the tiniest organism, was looked at on its own.” Until this time, most observers of the natural environment looked primarily (or exclusively) at the larger picture and did not recognize the interconnectedness of the parts and pieces and the associated importance the interactions and interdependencies in the overarching functionality – and the importance of the role played by each piece and part in making the whole thing work.

According to Golley (1993), the English ecologist Alfred G. Tansley is credited with coining the term “ecosystem” in 1935 in a twenty-three page article titled The Use and Abuse of

Vegetational Concepts and Terms. Per Golley: “Ecosystem referred to a holistic and integrative ecological concept that combined living organisms and the physical environment into a system.” Golley also noted “Eugene P. Odum’s use of the ecosystem concept as an organizing concept” in the textbook Fundamentals of Ecology (1953) “transformed a specialized idea into a concept with vast theoretical and applied significance.”

The size of what is considered an ecosystem is fluid based on the area under consideration.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (2017a) suggested: “The term ‘ecosystem’ does not, necessarily, correspond to the terms "biome" or "ecological zone", but can refer to any functioning unit at any scale. Indeed, the scale of analysis and action should be determined by

12 the problem being addressed. It could, for example, be a grain of soil, a pond, a forest, a biome or the entire biosphere.”

Lawrence (2005) defined ecosystem as a “community of different species interdependent on each other, together with their non-living environment, which is relatively self-contained in terms of energy flow, and is distinct from neighboring communities.” Similarly, Reece et al.

(2011) defined an ecosystem as “the sum of all the organisms living in a given area and the abiotic factors with which they interact.” It is not a stretch to apply these definitions to view human institutions through an ecosystem lens. That is not to say that human institutions are ecosystems in the ecological sense, but rather the attributes of both allow the concept of the ecosystem approach to management to function as an appropriate analog regarding application to human institutions. This metaphor will be explored later in this paper.

The term “ecosystem” has been co-opted into the business literature in various ways that do not apply to this paper. Pilinkiene and Maciulus (2014) noted the term ‘ecosystem’ is a relatively new concept in the field of business research and identified related uses of the concept such as industrial ecosystem; digital business ecosystem; business ecosystem; innovation ecosystem; and entrepreneurship ecosystem. Importantly, these applications of the concept are far different than the application of the ecosystem approach to management being applied to human organizational science – and that is the topic of this paper.

Ecosystem Aspects

The following subsections address aspects of ecosystems with direct relevance to the ecosystem approach to management explored in this paper.

Trophic Structure

Trophic structure in an ecosystem is represented by energy flow. Producers (e.g., plants, algae, phytoplankton) are the first level; herbivores are the second level; carnivores that eat herbivores are the third level; and carnivores that eat carnivores are the fourth level. Others

(e.g., omnivores, parasites, and scavengers) occupy different levels based on what they are consuming (based on Enger and Smith, 2010). The importance of the trophic levels is they represent the flow of energy through an ecosystem and approximately 90 percent of useful energy is lost with each trophic level transfer (i.e., only about 10% of the energy stored in the organic matter of each trophic level is converted to organic matter at the next trophic level; per

Reece at al., 2011). The string of transfers is called a food chain and the overlap and intersection of several food chains is termed a food web.

Two models of community organization are common, according to Reece et al. (2011). The bottom-up model “postulates a unidirectional influence from lower to higher trophic levels. …

To change the community structure of a bottom-up community, you need to alter biomass at the lower trophic levels, allowing those changes to propagate up through the food web.” Reece et al. go on: “By contrast, the top-down model postulates the opposite: Predation mainly controls community organization because predators limit herbivores, herbivores limit plants, and plants limit nutrient levels through nutrient uptake.” This elaborated on by Ausubel and

Harpignies (2004): “Ecological systems function not just top down but also bottom up.

Everything is in a circle. All levels of the food web intersect, and energy flows through every level of an ecosystem.”

Keystone Species

According to Vogt et al. (1997), “The term ‘keystone species’ was first coined by Paine (1966) in reference to species whose activity and abundance determined ‘the integrity of the community and its unaltered persistence through time, that is, stability.” The authors go on to define keystone species as “a species that has a disproportionate effect on the persistence of other species and whose removal leads, often indirectly, to the loss of many other species in the community (i.e., decreased diversity).” Reece et al. (2011) suggested keystone species

“exert strong control on community structure not by numerical might, but by the pivotal ecological roles.” Enger and Smith (2010) provided the example of grazing animals in prairie ecosystems and their importance in maintaining the diverse species found in such ecosystems.

The authors discussed how the grasses are kept diverse because when bison eat the grass, smaller plant species can survive which would otherwise be shaded out by taller grasses and similarly the bison wallow out depressions in the soil and it is in these disturbed areas where certain plant species thrive. Enger and Smith concluded regarding keystone species: “all species cannot be treated equally. Some species have pivotal roles and their elimination or severe reduction can significantly alter ecosystems.”

It is important to recognize the identification of keystone species can be difficult and there is some controversy over the how effectual the species actually are in the stated role in their environment. For example, Vogt et al. (1997) referenced Mills et al. (1993) who argued the keystone species concept may not be valid as a mechanism used by managers because of the

15 challenge of recognizing keystone species and because the keystone-species impacts on systems and the resulting feedback have not been well established.

Habitat and Biodiversity

The space where an organism lives is its habitat, such as a cool, highly oxygenated stream with bottom-dwelling insects can be a habitat for trout. According to Dickinson and Murphy

(1998), “In a particularly good metaphor, habitat has been described as an organism’s ‘address’ and niche as its ‘profession’.” Various species – and the individuals within them – are constantly competing and cooperating to occupy these addresses and niches.

For a healthy ecosystem, there must be biodiversity in these species and individuals. We do not always notice such biodiversity and its importance, as pointed out by Kohm and Franklin

(1997): “The greatest functional diversity in nature is provided by organisms that receive the least attention from both scientists and managers, the invertebrates and microbes – E.O.

Wilson (1987) called invertebrates and microbes ‘the little things that run the world’.” These invertebrates and microbes are performing very important work – even if it is not always obvious to us. This is an important point: the actions that drive an ecosystem are not entirely within view of our binoculars or microscopes. We often pay attention (and provide importance) to what we can readily see and disregard that which is hidden from view. But it takes everything working for the ecosystem to function – not just the large species and other obvious parts. The invertebrates and microbes have an effect across the trophic levels – and in doing so, contribute across all the food chains.

As with the small species, the large species at the top of the food webs are important. Weise

(2016) noted “Without apex predators, an ecosystem gets out of whack.” Weise went on to

16 describe the value of the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone: “Two decades after the

Yellowstone introduction, wildlife biologists are thrilled by how quickly the wolves have restored balance to the elk population, which had bloated after decades without a predator.

The willow, aspen, and cottonwood that the ungulates had trampled regrew, attracting songbirds, filtering waterways, and bringing back beavers and other riparian fauna.” [By contrast to this apparent balance, Miot (2017) updated the fifty-plus-year study of wolves and moose on Isle Royale and documented only two wolves are left, further demonstrating that no apparent balance was reached during the time of this unique single predator – single prey relationship.]

As has been described, ecosystems are continuously adapting and with these adaptations, species vary in quantity and type. MacArthur and Wilson, in the research behind their book The

Theory of Island Biogeography (1967) demonstrated the number of species in a defined area are constantly changing (both upward and downward). This affects the biodiversity. And biodiversity is a fundamental component regarding ecosystem health as realized by the resultant resilience. According to research at Stanford University (2012) “Disturbance has more impact on ecosystems that have lost diversity.” Similarly, Elmqvist et al. (2003) contended:

“Biological diversity appears to enhance the resilience of desirable ecosystem states, which is required to secure the production of essential ecosystem services. The diversity of responses to environmental change among species contributing to the same ecosystem function, which we call response diversity, is critical to resilience. Response diversity is particularly important for ecosystem renewal and reorganization following change.” The roles played by biodiversity and their relationships to resilience and similar concepts have been addressed by a number of

17 authors [cf. Lannoo, 2010; Giller et al., 2004; Magurran, 1988; Dudley, 2002; Page, 2011; and

Krause et al., 2011].

Biological Processes

Hagen (1992), in his book An Entangled Bank: The Origins of Ecosystem Ecology, provided deep detail regarding how the ecosystem concept evolved from attention paid only to the individual components to a greater systems approach with an appreciation of the interconnectedness, as suggested in the sentence: “Nature might be composed of aggregations of individuals, as Henry Gleason argued, but Tansley responded that focusing only upon the individuals led the ecologist to ignore important biological processes.” [See also Odum, 1983.]

It is in these biological processes where the interactions occur leading to interconnectedness and interdependence from which adaptability and resilience ultimately emerge.

In a simplistic phrase, an ecosystem is a ‘community of relationships’ and this is supported by

Rolston (2003): “an ecosystem is not so much an object in the focus of vision as an enveloping community, a place in space, a process in time, a set of vital relationships.” And of this community perspective, Rolston recommends “One should look for a matrix of interconnections between centres, for creative stimulus and open-ended potential. Everything will be connected to many other things, sometimes by obligate associations, more often by partial and pliable dependencies … There will be shunts and criss-crossing pathways, cybernetic subsystems and feedback loops.” This evokes the famous sentiment of the naturalist John Muir

(1911), who wrote "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe." The key point is the ‘community of relationships’ are at the base of the

18 biological processes and create the interconnectedness, interrelationships, and interdependencies which give rise to the high functionality.

Thus, ecosystems are comprised of biological processes intertwined and interconnected in such a complex manner that we could never hope to untangle all the strands. Importantly, there is no need to try to untangle, but rather we need to embrace the tangled messiness and realize the interconnectedness provides a growth of the functionality of the ecosystem through increasing levels of information, as put forth by Jantsch (1980), who wrote that Margalef (1968)

“Described the evolution of an ecosystem as process of information accumulation. Information is not only generated by the differentiation of the participating species and the structuration of their life processes, but also in the establishment of paths, burrows, signals, and other physical structures which result from multiple confirmation of life processes. The environmental information gained by the system is subsequently applied to the acquisition of higher autonomy and thus, paradoxically, to the partial blocking of further information intake from the environment.”

Ecological Successions and Phases

According to Hagen (1992), people have long held two views of the living world: Machine- like stability and chaotic warfare (i.e., a struggle for existence). And although these appear dichotomous, Hagen referenced Edward Manier (1978), who suggested Darwin’s concept of struggle for existence was a deliberate choice, a sort of compromise between Thomas Hobbes’ war of nature and Charles Lydell’s idea of nature in steady state. Hagen concludes that although ecology has been grounded in a dogmatic commitment to nature in equilibrium,

19 ecologists have recently recognized the living world is characterized by pervasive disturbance and instability.

To this point, Vogt et al. (1997) reminded us that “Ecosystem management has to incorporate into its analyses the fact that ecosystems are very dynamic, that is, there does not exist a steady-state condition for an ecosystem” (though this is dependent on time scales). This is in stark contrast to how decades ago, ecologists held the view that biological communities are typically in some sort of stable balance (as per Reece et al., 2011).

The primary reason ecosystems are always changing is due to low level, moderate, and severe disturbances. Reece et al. (2011) defined disturbance as “an event, such as a storm, fire, flood, drought, overgrazing, or human activity that changes a community by removing organisms from it or altering resource availability.” The authors further noted the term “non- equilibrium model” is used to describe the constant change in ecosystems due to disturbances.

These disturbances vary in intensity and frequency and range from low level (e.g., the frequent occurrence of freezing of a pond) to severe (e.g., a devastating fire). At a moderate disturbance level, Reece et al. described the “intermediate disturbance hypothesis” where there is a greater level of species diversity than at the low or high levels of disturbance. Whereas high-level disturbance levels cause high stresses beyond the tolerances of many species and the number of species is reduced, low-level disturbances allow competitively dominant species to outcompete the species which are not as competitively adapted. By contrast, the moderate- level disturbance (such as some floods) opens up habitat for less competitive species, resulting in greater overall diversity. Reece et al. noted there is mounting evidence that most communities are in non-equilibrium conditions due to disturbances.

These disturbances are a primary cause leading to the process called ‘ecological succession.’

Primary succession occurs in a lifeless area where there is no soil. Natural processes, such as the weathering of rocks and the colonization by lichens and moss, lead to organic matter developing and allowing grasses, bushes, and trees to take a foothold. (This process can take a thousand years to make an inch of topsoil.) After these early plants become somewhat established, more forms of vegetation move in and continue to develop the area. Primary succession typically takes a long time to lead to a community. Secondary succession occurs when a disturbance leaves the soil intact, but destroys the vegetation. Early arriving species may end up making the environment more favorable for later arriving species or may inhibit the later arriving species or may not impact the later arriving species.

Vogt et al. (1997) suggested ecosystem management often tries to mirror the effect of a natural disturbance (or the frequency of disturbances) in an effort to facilitate natural regeneration. And, to the point of this paper, Hutchins (2014) noted these regenerative cycles that occur in nature provide insight for organizational resilience.

Sutter (2006) discussed the forest ecosystem as a natural organization that demonstrates a remarkable ‘adaptive renewal cycle’ to resist and recover from disturbance. Sutter cited Holling

(1992) who suggested the natural capital (which could be considered to be the organic carbon) in a forest creates a ‘relentless loop’, an adaptive renewal cycle, with four phases. A disturbance, such as a forest fire, creates the release phase and this makes the natural capital more broadly available to the rest of the system. This is followed by a reorganization phase, with the pioneer species storing capital, but the overall connectivity is low throughout the system. Then there is a slow exploitation phase that develops complex relationships and

21 increases the amount of stored natural capital. The fourth phase is the conservation phase

(such as a climax forest) where the natural stored capital is high and there is a high level of interconnectedness. The climax – or fourth phase – continues until a disturbance causes the next release phase to start. [Note this description of the various phases applies best to forest ecosystems and is not as readily applicable to many other ecosystems.]

Back in 1928, Clements developed the term ‘climax’ for when there is stable vegetation cover and there is high primary productivity. This is the stage that often comes to mind as we think of mature forests. But, importantly, it must be recognized the climax stage is not an end stage. It is a conditional phase, just like the other phases, and it is no more or less important than those other phases in terms of the ecosystem health. It is simply a part of a continuum of ecological succession. In reality, all the stages are occurring at some level all the time in each ecosystem. This is why ecosystems are in non-equilibrium and a steady-state condition cannot be considered valid in any meaningful way. Scheffer et al. (2001) noted ecosystems are constantly exposed to many gradual changes (e.g., climate, nutrient loading, exploitation) and the ecosystems respond with continual adaptive change (except when an ecosystem has lost enough resilience, the change may not be smooth and minor, but rather a sudden and drastic change to an alternative state). The authors concluded: “This suggests that strategies for sustainable management of such ecosystems should focus on maintaining resilience.” This concept of maintaining resilience is the key contention of this paper.

Ecotones, Boundaries, and Wildlife Corridors

Of great importance to the ecological succession and adaptive changes are the various transitional areas and the accompanying boundaries and corridors. Boundaries are the edges, such as those between a forest and a lake or between a meadow and a canyon. Boundaries have a significant impact on the movement of wildlife and the habitat. They also are a factor in the locations of ecotones and wildlife corridors.

Ecotones are described by Reece et al. (2011) as those areas where the terrestrial areas grade into each other (termed ‘intergradation’). Vogt et al. (1997) described the area between edges and ecotones as having the highest biotic and/or abiotic variability and the maximum rate of change. According to Capra and Luisa (2014): “If a meadow adjacent to a forest is mown close to the trees, the boundary may be very narrow. But if parts of the meadow near the trees are left unmown, the transition between grasses and trees may be more gradual, and the thus the boundary much wider, with shrubs and trees growing near the interface. In both cases, the boundary will influence the flows of materials, organisms, and energy between the two patches.”

Of particular note is what is termed ‘connectivity’ or ‘wildlife corridors.’ Connectivity is defined by Vogt et al. (1997) as “the extent to which the landscape pattern of the ecosystem provides for biological flows that sustain animal and plant populations.” In a study on the value of wildlife corridors, Fremier et al. (2015) stated: “Connectivity is a valuable element for bridging that gap and building the ecological resilience of existing protected areas.” It is these corridors that allow the movements resulting in some of the interconnectedness necessary to make the ecosystem function properly.

Ecosystem Resilience

Definition of Resilience

Resilience is the primary ecosystem attribute of interest in this paper. The concept of ecosystem resilience has not always been recognized by name and in the literature, but we have long had an intuitive feel for it, as voiced by the naturalist John Burroughs (1905), who suggested “The plan of Nature is so immense, but she has no plan, no scheme, but to go on and on forever.” As nature studies evolved over time, ecosystems became better understood and the outcome of a system that kept going on was recognized. According to Folke (2006), “The resilience perspective emerged from ecology in the 1960s and early 1970s through studies of interacting populations like predators and prey and their functional responses in relation to ecological stability theory.” According to Gunderson (2000), C.S. Holling “introduced the word resilience into the ecological literature as a way of helping to understand the non-linear dynamics observed in ecosystems.”

Resilience is a concept that eludes an exact definition. Brand and Jax (2007) noted Holling

(1973) was the first to introduce ‘resilience’ as a descriptive ecological term, but since then the term “has been frequently redefined and extended by heuristic, metaphorical, or normative dimensions” and gives as examples Holling (2001); Ott and Döring (2004); Pickett, Cadenasso, and Grove (2004); and Hughes et al. (2005). The authors went on to suggest “resilience is increasingly viewed in a rather vague and malleable meaning” and cite works which have used the concept “as an important tool to measure sustainability” [cf. Arrow et al., 1995; Perrings et al., 1995; Folke, Holling, and Perring, 1996; Levin et al., 1998] and in other fields such as

“economics” [cf. Farber, 1995; Batabyal, 1998; Perrings and Stern, 2000; Brock et al., 2002; and

Perrings, 2006]; “political science” [cf. Olsson et al., 2006]; “sociology” [cf. Adger 2000]; and

“planning” [cf. Pickett, Cadenasso, and Grove, 2004).

Although the term ‘resilience’ may suffer from numerous connotations, for the purpose of this paper it is effectively captured by Golley (1993) as the “capacity of an ecosystem to respond after being disturbed” and by Lengnick (2015) who suggested “Specified resilience is the resilience of some specific component, for example, the resilience of the spring bloom to a late frost. … General resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbances of all kinds, including those that are novel and unexpected, so that the system maintains its structure, function, and purpose.”

What is quintessential in these definitions is the emphasis on the abilities to respond and function and maintain a purpose. Equally key is the lack of suggestion regarding a return to the exact same previous condition. In other words, the ecosystem responds and adapts to a disturbance, but the outcome of that response and adaptation is continued functionality, not a return to a precise equilibrium state. Given enough time for succession cycles and if the climate remains relatively unchanged, there is some essence of a homeostatic return to a similar previous condition. But the climax condition is not of critical importance; rather, the very notion of continued functionality and purpose are what matter. This is further suggested by Redman (2014): “Resilience theory does not seek to control the outcomes of the adaptive cycle. It structures the reorganization and exploitation phases so that some relationships are favored and others discouraged. The ultimate goal is not to build adaptive capacity within just any system state, but enhance the likelihood that the new system will weather shocks, pass

25 through the inevitable adaptive cycle gracefully, reduce serious vulnerabilities, and move system states from undesirable to desirable.”

Why Ecosystems are Resilient

How do ecosystems build resilience to natural disturbances? Jantsch (1980) suggested it is tied to the hierarchy of trophic levels and their interactions so that stresses and disturbances are muted down and do not reach a resonant frequency: “In mature ecosystems the fluctuations arriving from the outside, such as climatic oscillations, become increasingly damped. Instead of a rhythm dictated by reactions to environmental events, the endogenous rhythm of the systems unfolds to an increasing extent. A mature ecosystem, even in the tropics, is not a confused tangle of wild growth, but incorporates a very fine order.” A similar concept was put forth by Wheatley (2006) writing about ecosystems: “The system allows for many levels of autonomy within itself, and for small fluctuations and changes. By tolerating these, it is able to preserve its global stability and integrity in the environment.” In fact, the fluctuations may be an important component in maintaining a healthy ecosystem, as suggested by the ecologist Holling (1976) who “vigorously emphasized that healthy, resilient ecosystems are those which live with high local fluctuations.”

However, the level of ecosystem fitness to bounce back from a disruptive event, and thus its resilience, can vary. A study published by Stanford University (2012) spoke to the amplification of negative effects in ecosystem resilience has been previously reduced by other factors:

“Resilience loss can feed back on itself, because disturbance has a greater effect on ecosystems that have already lost resilience. It is easier to lose diversity, productivity and (even more) resilience from ecosystems with decreased resilience.” Thus, ecosystem resilience is a function

26 of numerous factors and resiliency health can vary significantly between ecosystems. In an article entitled What is a Healthy Ecosystem?, Costanza and Mageau (1999) suggested the following factors regarding ecosystem health: “it has the ability to maintain its structure

(organization) and function (vigor) over time in the face of external stress (resilience).”

These factors and their outcomes are a source of emerging and continued research in various ecological fields; for example, natural recovery and human management of environmental disasters [cf. Moral and Walker]; marine ecosystem resilience [cf. Hofmann and

Gaines, 2008; Levin and Lubchenco, 2008; and Palumbi, 2008]; and agricultural resilience

(sometimes within the context of sustainability) [cf. Ikerd, 1993; Lawley, et al., 2013; Lin, 2011;

Magdoff, 2007; Reganold, Papendick, and Parr, 1990; Schaller, 1993; Sciere et al., 2004;

Shepard, 2013; Thomas and Kevan, 1993; Tilman et al., 2002; and Yunlong and Smit, 1994.]

Resilience Compared to Sustainability

The term ‘sustainability’, like resilience, suffers from many connotations. Brand and Jax

(2007) discussed how the definition of ‘sustainability’ is “highly diluted and unclear” and argued the term ‘sustainability’ has “been reduced to a listing of any societal objectives that agents happen to think important. That means that the extension of the term has become extremely wide.” And to cause further confusion, sustainability and resilience are related, but different, concepts. Redman (2014) directly addressed the similarities and differences and speaks to the theoretical approaches of sustainability science and resilience theory and notes that blending these concepts “could inadvertently compromise fundamental assumptions of the respective theories.” Redman referenced Fiksel (2006) and presented an example of the concern of mixing fundamentals from the two concepts: “One commonly invoked outcome for a

27 sustainable city is maximum efficiency via minimizing energy and material use, but that positive outcome could result in the unintended consequence of reducing the systems resilience.”

This suggests a focus on sustainability may come at the cost of having adequate resilience to recover during a disturbance. This is a very important point: resilience utilizes system redundancies and operations that function at far less than maximum efficiency because this allows for recovery rather than catastrophic failure. Consider how a highly-tuned engine being run at its extreme may experience catastrophic failure the moment there is a minor upset condition – this is because there is no capacity for change, no chance to adapt to a different operating environment. And there are always changes to the operating environment and that means there is always need for some level of adaptive capacity – along with an understanding that it is not as important to return to the same condition as it is to continue to function. This is the essence of the differences and is supported by Zolli and Healy (2013), who argued: “Where sustainability aims to put the world back in balance, resilience looks for ways to manage in an unbalanced world.”

Resilience Compared to Resistance

Different ecosystems can have different resilience and resistance. For example, Vogt et al.

(1997) identified the high resistance to fire of the thick bark of California redwoods, but if the bark is sufficiently burned, the redwood recovery is slow and may not recover at all, meaning low resilience. By contrast, California chaparral vegetation readily burns (low resistance), but recovers quite quickly (high resilience). As such, Vogt et al. advised: “Managers should manage for resilient ecosystems by maintaining a diversity of successional or developmental stages and species across the landscape to reduce the homogeneity of vegetation over large areas. In this

28 way, catastrophic disturbance will be expressed across a variety of ecosystem stages, resulting in a mixture of earlier stages, which are more resistant to these disturbances, and later stages, which may not be as resilient but have desirable characteristics that minimize the impacts of disturbances.”

The Ecosystem Approach

The concept referred to as the ‘ecosystem approach’ has emerged and it is this philosophy to which we will turn later in this paper to provide a fundamental underpinning for bringing resilience to human organizations. But we must first look at what is specifically meant by the ecosystem approach and then explore how the metaphor applies beyond nature’s ecosystems to human organizations.

What is the Ecosystem Approach?

How humans should interact with nature – how to ‘manage’ nature – has a long history. As the industrial revolution emerged, the concept of working with nature began to shift more towards attempting to command and control nature. There is an approximate correlation between how humans tried to manage nature and how they tried to manage their organizations. Cairns and Heckman (1996) wrote about restoration ecology and argued that such restoration activities would have to be continued once initiated.

As the scientific world put forth a mechanistic, reductionist, linear concept of how many things work, this idea was also applied to understanding how nature works. Oelschlaeger

(1991) discussed the background for our dichotomous relationship with nature: “As the seventeenth century gave way to the eighteenth, two rival streams of ecology emerged.”

Oelschlaeger went on to quote Worster (1977): “Pastoral ecology ‘advocated a simple, humble

29 life for man with the aim of restoring him with a peaceful coexistence with other organisms,’ and imperial ecology aimed ‘to establish, through the exercise of reason [materialistic mechanism] and by hard work, man’s dominion over nature’.”

But the natural world, like a human organization, is complex, interrelated, and interdependent and thus the orderly, mechanistic, linear model does not properly apply to many aspects. But that hasn’t stopped humans from trying to force fit the conceptual model, such as that discussed by Haber (1964) regarding scientific management in the progressive era of 1890-1920. However, over time, we have slowly recognized the interrelated parts bring about the emergence of a complexity that defies breaking down and managing at the individual level. To do so only results in unexpected – and usually undesirable – outcomes. Embracing the complexity, working with the functioning systems, and constantly adapting has been recognized as a much better paradigm to keep the system intact and fully operating.

The origin of the adaptive management concept can be traced back to ideas of scientific management pioneered by Frederick Taylor in the early 1900s (see Haber, 1964). While the term ‘adaptive management’ evolved in natural resource management workshops through decision makers, managers and scientists focused on building simulation models to uncover key assumptions and uncertainties [cf. Bormann et al., 1999; Falanruw, 1984; Stankey, Clark, and

Bormann, 2005]. The concept of how best to manage ecosystems continued to evolve over time. Vogt et al. (1997) discussed how the management of natural resources has changed from an emphasis on “allocation measures, maximum sustained yield principles, and multi-use objectives” to a new paradigm termed ecosystem management with a focus on “sustainable ecosystems rather than sustainable yield.”

Some entities have put forward a formal definition for ecosystem management: According to the UN (n.d.): “While there is no single internationally agreed-upon ecosystem approach or definition of an ‘ecosystem approach’, the concept is generally understood to encompass the management of human activities, based on the best understanding of the ecological interactions and processes, so as to ensure that ecosystems structure and functions are sustained for the benefit of present and future generations.” Similarly, the Convention on

Biological Diversity (2017a) suggested this definition: “The ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. … An ecosystem approach is based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies focused on levels of biological organization, which encompass the essential structure, processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment.”

Vogt et al. (1997) contended it is a misconception for ecosystem management to require a singular definition to be properly integrated. In fact, the authors noted, attempts to provide a single definition “have been met with skepticism” because of the many “management scenarios and objectives.” This is further supported by the Convention on Biological Diversity (2017a):

“The ecosystem approach requires adaptive management to deal with the complex and dynamic nature of ecosystems and the absence of complete knowledge or understanding of their functioning. Ecosystem processes are often non-linear, and the outcome of such processes often shows time-lags. The result is discontinuities, leading to surprise and uncertainty.”

The philosophic view of the ecosystem approach provides the framework to cope with the complexity of an ecosystem [cf. Ascher, 2001]; deal with ecosystem uncertainty [cf. Calkin and

Mentis, 2015]; and put theory into practice to meet ecosystem management objectives [cf.

Butler and Koontz, 2005].

How Does the Metaphor Apply?

Does the concept of ecosystem management, taken from its wild roots in helping ecologists and others effectively restore and maintain ecosystems and return their full resilience, translate in any manner to helping managers of human organizations restore and maintain their institutions and give those institutions a share of resilience? Does the metaphor work? Is it even appropriate to propose the use of such a metaphoric translation? Ray Bradbury, the science fiction author, challenged us to “Never be afraid of the metaphor.” Robson (1985), in a dissertation exploring the use of metaphor in scientific writing, asserted: “For centuries both philosophers of science and scientists have challenged the use of metaphor in scientific discourse, but a close look at this discourse reveals metaphor as a vital and necessary tool in developing scientific terminologies and hypotheses.” This is backed by Loettgers (2013), in an article titled Metaphors Advance Scientific Research: “Metaphors and analogies have long driven cross-disciplinary exchange.” Wittbecker (2006) gave us examples of the value of making a metaphoric leap: “Metaphors can allow scientists to deal with complex situations. For example: ‘The world is atomic,’ according to Leukippus and Demokritus; ‘atoms are billiard balls’ for Dalton and Rutherford; ‘the world is mathematical,’ according to Pythagoras; ‘man is an animal,’ for Karl Pribram; ‘man is a system,’ for Ernst Laszlo; and ‘man is a computer,’ for

Michael Arbib.”

In an article titled Metaphors in Science, Goonay (2002) quoted George Lakoff, professor of linguistics at the University of California Berkley along with philosopher Mark Johnson as explaining: “The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another. We generally use analogies to make less familiar things appear in guises that are more familiar to us.” Goonay noted how “scientific theory requires the use of models to understand the theoretical terms. For example, in order to comprehend the kinetic theory of gas, we must resort to an analogue model gas behaving as if it were composed of point particles randomly moving in a vessel. Metaphorical models help to improve the scientific imagination.”

Hurst (2012) used a term he called “ecological rationality” based on an assumption “the human mind is not rational in a logical way, but it is rational in an ‘ecological’ way. … Thus, we are instinctively analogical rather than analytical in our mental habits. To be analogical is to integrate, to ‘gather things together.’ This is the opposite of the process of analysis, which breaks things apart. … Nature has been humankind’s context through evolution, so it is not surprising that we have become ecologically rational in the process.” Indeed, Ausubel and

Harpignies (2004) told us: “One of the beauties of biology is that facts become our metaphors.”

Fulmer (2000) wrote: “Increasingly, writers about business are introducing new analogies to try to help executives understand various business issues.” Fulmer suggested the oldest business analogy is warfare. He went on to note: “A number of business writers have used the world of sports and entertainment, especially music, as analogies. Most recently the new analogies have come from the world of science – chaos theory, complexity, quantum physics,

33 and biology. … it is not surprising that biology and ecosystems in particular have drawn recent attention.”

However, Scharf (2013), in an article titled In Defense of Metaphors in Scientific Writing cautioned: “The problem is that while a specific metaphor might work for some people, it won’t for others.” This is a valid concern for the application of the ecosystem approach to human organizations because an ecosystem in nature is not the same as a human organization and there is no way to directly align the two (though as detailed earlier in this paper, it is not a large leap to approximate the equivalence of the two). It does take a bit of a leap to make the metaphor work, but that doesn’t mean taking such a philosophical approach is not valid. In fact, many authors have explored this metaphor: [cf. Tippett (2004) “Think Like an Ecosystem” –

Embedding a Living System Paradigm Into Participatory Planning; Dombeck (1996) Thinking Like a Mountain: BLM’s Approach to Ecosystem Management; Dombeck (2012) Ecosystem Thinking

Comes to the Public Lands; Perry (2012) Is an Ecosystem-Based Approach the Future of

Funding?; Greer (2010) Thinking Like an Ecosystem; Karau (2012) Thinking Like an Ecosystem:

Architecture, Agriculture, and Ecological Footprints; Seabrook (2016) Using Practical

Permaculture Principles to Help Us Think Like an Ecosystem; Lappe (2011) EcoMind: Changing the Way We Think, to Create the World We Want; Lappe (2012) Think Like an Ecosystem, See

Solutions; McLaughlin (2008) Thinking Like an Ecosystem: The Inherent Uncertainty of Natural

Systems Calls for the Integration of Resiliency and Diversity in Environmental Management; and

Mars, Bronstein, and Lusch (2012) The Value of a Metaphor: Organizations and Ecosystems].

Perhaps the best argument for the validity – and perhaps the necessity – of applying the ecosystem approach to human institutions is given by Mars, Bronstein, and Lusch (2014) in an

34 article entitled Organizations as Ecosystems: Probing the Value of a Metaphor: “We increasingly hear the alarm siren signaling that organizations can no longer survive - much less thrive - by continuing to use frameworks developed during the Industrial Revolution. In recent years, one framework that has emerged to illuminate how networked systems function optimally centers on ecological thinking and its application to organizations. The implication is that an

'organizational ecosystem' functions much as a biological ecosystem does, exhibiting both desirable and undesirable properties that are similar to what we see in nature.”

CHAPTER FOUR

OVERVIEW OF COMPLEXITY SCIENCE

To try to gain a fundamental understanding of how ecosystems function, we can take a look at complexity science – which may offer the best insight into how the mass interactions in an ecosystem result in higher-level emergent behaviors. Mitchell (2009) argued: “Complexity is everywhere. From unicellular behavior to processes on a global or cosmological scale, nature presents us with astonishingly complex, interconnected patterns of behavior.” Taylor (2001) suggested why this is important: “More and more apparently diverse phenomena are explained by fewer and fewer underlying principles.”

Aligned with the context of this paper, Levin (1998) contended: “Ecosystems are prototypical examples of complex adaptive systems, in which patterns at higher levels emerge from localized interactions and selection processes acting at lower levels.” But getting our heads around complexity science is difficult by the very essence of what it is – complex. Zimmerman,

Lindberg, and Plsek (1998) discussed how, in a very real way, it is not one thing, but many:

“Complexity science is not a single theory. It is the study of complex adaptive systems – the patterns of relationships within them, how they are sustained, how they self-organize, and how outcomes emerge.” This is further supported by McIndoe (2005), who maintained a widely accepted definition for a complex adaptive system (CAS) is not available, but suggested Dooley

(1997) has gone the furthest in providing a universal definition (as slightly modified by

McIndoe): “A CAS is a system composed of many interacting semi-autonomous parts (usually called agents) where each part has a few simple individual behaviors which when aggregated with other parts can produce systems with emergent behaviors of high complexity.” Yet

36 another attempt at a definition is proposed by Mitchell (2009): “a system in which large networks of components with no central control and simple rules of operation give rise to complex adaptive behavior, sophisticated information processing, and adaptation via learning or evolution.”

Complexity science grew out of the development of the philosophical concepts associated with Cybernetics, General Systems Theory, and Chaos Theory, among others. For example, complexity concepts were at the heart of the Cybernetics movement. These efforts have converged to bring complexity science to where it is today, but it yet still difficult to fully embrace the concepts because they lie outside our ability to fully comprehend, even though they are at some level intuitive to us. When it comes to complex adaptive systems, we know one when we see one. Holland (1992) offered real-world examples of CAS as economies, ecologies, immune systems, developing embryos, cities such as New York, and the mammalian brain. Thus, we can recognize we are surrounded by – and even operated by (in an Adam Smith

Invisible Hand way) – complex adaptive systems, but it has proven difficult to tease out how to apply complexity science to our real world applications.

Complexity is about non-linearity and paradox, yet there is something in these concepts that speaks to us in a language we cannot quite decipher, but we know at some intuitive level we are on to something significant. Research continues in a variety of associated paths, but it is not probable complexity science will ever be reduced to a series of widely applicable algorithms. In other words, it will likely take both art, science, and hard work to positively apply complexity science into our human world.

But just because it is difficult doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. In fact, applying complexity science might represent the best we will ever do at maximizing potential – including (and perhaps, especially) the potential of our human institutions. But applying complexity science to human organizations is not a fad concept – rather, it addresses the very fundamentals of what an organization is. This was addressed directly by Stacey, Griffin, and Shaw (2006) in a book entitled Complexity Management: Fad or Radical Change to Systems Thinking? Similarly, the fundamentals were addressed by Fryer (2011a) in an article entitled Surviving and Thriving:

“Complex adaptive systems are not a management process, like Total Quality Management or

Business Process Reengineering which require the use of consultants and big change programs.

Complex adaptive systems are a concept which provides us with a fresh way of looking at our organizations.”

It is very important to differentiate between those systems which exhibit complex behavior and systems that are complicated. Harris (2007) asked “What is the difference between the complex and the merely complicated?” Then answers: “Complicated means what common sense dictates: lots of interacting components or parts. The way in which complicated systems work can be understood by taking them apart and studying the function of the parts, essentially a mechanistic view. Complexity, on the other hand, reveals that apparently simple sets of interacting agents … can produce extremely complex patterns of behavior – even chaos – and that there are frequently counterintuitive or surprising properties of the whole that are not found other than through the interactions of the whole.”

This differentiation between complicated and complex is important to the argument put forward in this paper. At one time, humans believed we could understand nature by studying

Whereas we do not have much Whereas we do not have much each of its major components

(e.g., each river, beaver, tree, etc.) in isolation or looking only at the high-level systems, but over time the ecosystem philosophy emerged as we began to grasp that it is the interactions and interdependencies of the components which give rise to an emergence of properties and functions unable to be understood by looking only at the isolated components and high-level systems. In a similar manner, we try to understand our organizations by studying the major components and high-level systems and we analyze the impact of time-and-motion studies and we reconfigure management structures – but we don’t gain the understanding we had hoped to achieve. So we don’t know what changes to make to realize the outcomes we desire. This is because we are dealing with the organizations as if they were only complicated (rather than complex) and this underscores why many of our change efforts have less than the desired effect (or even the opposite effect).

Our organizations are not just complicated; they are also complex. And effectively dealing with complexity is nearly impossible unless we have a paradigm by which we can operate. That paradigm is the ecosystem approach because complexity science is our best working theory for how ecosystems function. Complexity arises through interconnectedness, dynamic communication with feedback loops, and wide diversity and these factors lead to emergence, self-organization, and paradoxical order/disorder. Ecosystems realize complexity through diversity, adaptability, and interactions (in terms of competition and cooperation) across all scales. The outcome of this complexity is resilience (not a homeostatic return to the exact way things were before a major upset condition, but rather a return to a fully functioning system).

Some authors have looked at ecosystems as complex adaptive systems and the effect of associated human interactions [cf. Abel, 1998; Bak, 1996; Jianguo et al., 2007; Pahl-Wostl, 2007;

Porter, 2006]. Others have used complexity science as a basis of a particular aspect of organizational theory or the implications of complexity science to organizations, especially to change the mechanisms by which the organizations functions [cf. Begun, 1994; Townsend,

2001; Axelrod and Cohen, 2000; Banerjee, 2012; Burnes, 2005; Cohen, 1999; de Sitter, den

Hertog, and Dankbaar, 1997; Dent, 2003; Gharajedaghi, 2011; Glenn and Malott, 2004;

Goldstein, Hazy, and Lichtenstein, 2010; Lichenstein et al., 2006; McGuire and McKelvey, 1999;

McKelvey 2002 and 2004; Obelensky, 2014; Richardson, 2008; Smith, 2005; Smith and

Humphries, 2004; Stacey, 1996; Thietart and Forgues, 2011; Tsoukas and Hatch, 2001; Uhl-Bien,

Marion, and McKelvey, 2007; and Warfield, 1999; Perrow, 1972 ]. Gunderson, Holling, and

Light (1995) explored the role of complexity science in the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. Norberg and Cumming (2008) examined the role of complexity science in achieving sustainability. Directly addressing complexity science with ecosystem management are Janssen

(2003); Bosquet and Le Page (2004); and Kimmins et al. (2008). Many others have addressed similar concepts related to the utilization of concepts from complexity science [cf. Farber, 2000;

Gleick, 1987; Schroeder, 1991; Brynteson, 2006; Camazine et al., 2003; Sole, 2005; Johnson,

2009; Johnson, 2001; Waldrop, 1992; Csete and Doyle. 2002; Neubauer, 2012; Richardson,

Cillers, and Lissack, 2000; Jantsch, 1980; Urry, 2005; and Wheatley, 2012].

By taking an ecosystem approach and embracing the precepts of complexity (e.g., diversity, constantly innovating, constantly evolving/adapting, focus on effectiveness rather than efficiency, etc.), a human organization can realize resilience that helps to ensure its long-term

40 health (especially as compared to organizations with a focus on short-term profitability or a limited vision).

Outcomes of Complexity

According to Harris (2007): “The properties of complex systems evolve continuously over time.” This paper focuses on three of those properties: self-organization; emergence; and resilience.

Self-Organization

While walking down a busy New York City sidewalk, it may not occur to someone they are experiencing ‘self-organization,’ but they are literally surrounded by it. William H. Whyte, author of the sociologic classic The Organization Man (1956), spent sixteen years conducting

The Street Life Project, where he and others studied New Yorkers as they moved through the city. From his observations, Whyte published a book entitled City: Rediscovering the Center

(2009) in which he wrote: “The pedestrian is a social being. He is also a transportation unit, and a marvelously complex and efficient one.” He described how pedestrians were able to move surprisingly fast without colliding into one another, even when the sidewalks were very crowded.” In describing the findings of Whyte’s book, James Surowiecki (2004a) stated the following: ”What Whyte saw – and made us see - was the beauty of a well-coordinated crowd, in which lots of small, subtle adjustments in pace and stride and direction add up to a relatively smooth and efficient flow. Pedestrians are constantly anticipating each other’s behavior. No one tells them where or when or how to walk. Instead, they all decide for themselves what

41 they’ll do based on their best guess of what everyone else will do. And somehow it usually works out well. There is a kind of collective genius at play.”

Braha et al. (2006) gave us a definition for this type of self-organization: “Perhaps the single most important characteristic shared by all complex systems is self-organization: Self- organization can be described as the spontaneous appearance of large-scale organization through limited interactions among simple components. Miller (2010) pointed out how self- organization develops in a bottom-up manner through interactions: “Many groups of animals, from honeybees to herring, tackle difficult problems without direction from leaders. They do it through a phenomenon that scientist call self-organization … The patterns, shapes, and behaviors we see in such systems don’t come from preexisting blueprints or designs, but emerge on their own, from the bottom up, as a result of interactions among many parts.”

Miller went on to describe how it works: “three basic mechanisms by which it works: decentralized control; distributed problem-solving; and multiple interactions.”

Emergence

The property of emergence comes about as a result of this self-organization with the interactions, as suggested by Land, Hauck, and Baser (2009): “Emergence is an unplanned and uncontrollable process in which properties such as capacity emerge from the complex interactions among all actors in the system and produce characteristics not found in any of the elements of the system. The process is not driven by purposeful intervention and therefore cannot be managed in a conventional sense.” Steven Johnson, in his seminal book entitled

Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software (2001) provided an enlightening tour of how collective behavior and self-organization come about and manifest in

42 the natural world and in our everyday lives “to form more intelligent, more adaptive, higher- level behavior.” Holman (2010) pointed out that “Emergence is a process, continual and never- ending” due to “interactions among diverse entities.” Holman went on to note how the situation matters because diversity alone won’t lead to emergence – the initial conditions matter.

This is a difficult property to measure and fully understand, so there are critics who offer counterarguments. Kelly (1995) noted the term ‘emergent’ begins to disappear when scrutinized and questions what is really meant by the term. This is one of the challenges of complexity science: it is hard to define specific terms for which there is no existing language to properly and fully describe the characteristics. Further, because of the very complex nature of the subject, it is difficult to fully comprehend. Our best mechanism for understanding emergence (and the other principal properties associated with complexity science) is to consider the numerous examples from nature.

Resilience

Resilience was previously defined in this paper, but a reminder is provided by Zolli and Healy

(2013) who offered that resilience is the “Capacity of a system, enterprise, or a person to maintain its core purpose and integrity in the face of dramatically changed circumstances.”

Because complex systems realize self-organization and emergent properties and exhibit adaptive capabilities, a primary outcome is resilience – the ability to recover in some manner that maintains the core purpose. An example comes from traffic studies. Traffic can be considered a complex adaptive system – the individual agents are people in their cars and their core purpose it trying to get somewhere in particular. When a small set of traffic lights an

43 intersection stop working, there is at first a lot of hesitancy, but gradually a pattern emerges which the drivers recognize (such as every other car goes from one lane) until there is a flow that is as effective (and perhaps at times more effective) than the normal traffic flow pattern.

Resilience in ecosystems and other complex systems has been reported by many. Two examples follow: Messier, Puettmann, and Coates, (2014) explored the management of forests as complex systems to build resilience and Lengnick (2015) contended there are two types of resilience that can be achieved in complex systems: specified resilience and individual component and general resilience.

The Challenge of Applying Complexity Science

In the subsection regarding emergence, the difficulty of defining and understanding complex systems and their properties was briefly discussed. Beyond simply understanding the concept and terms, it has proven difficult to apply complexity principles to any management regime – ecosystems or human organizations included. It may sound trite, but complexity is complex and the outcomes are uncertain. To work in complexity is to muddle around in messiness, uncertainty, and paradox – and that does not fit our idea of management. We tend to prefer the comfortable linearity we find in the data charted in spreadsheets and databases and prescribed outcomes (even though such endpoints are rare or artificially forced and temporary). And the standard approach is inherently limiting – following the typical path tends to preclude self-organization, emergence, resilience, and the other primary properties embedded in complexity.

But we are to be forgiven for balking at embracing complexity science in how we try to manage because it is, in a sense, the ‘forest primeval’ previously described; i.e., it represents an unknown where danger seems to lurk. Frank Egler (as quoted in Bekoff, 2014) gave us a concept to deeply consider: “Ecosystems are not only more complex than we think, but more complex than we can think.” In other words, it is hard for us to even understand a functioning complex system in front of us ... how are we to deal with the foggy processes of a complex organization we cannot begin to fully comprehend. Malik (2011) noted: “The groundbreaking studies by Bamberg-based psychologist Dietrich Dörner prove that man, with his natural physiological and mental set-up, is not particularly capable of skillfully dealing with complexity.

We gather our life experience, both as generations and as individuals, in the context of simple systems. Our activity as managers, however, takes place in the context of extremely complex systems for which there is next to no education available to date.” Kendall (2013) contended:

“The thing about complexity is that it is incredibly difficult for us to understand in our current thinking. As humans we like to think in terms of geometry and structure and things we can see and we have some picture of things in our mind, but really natural systems are much more complex and so what we should be doing is building models of the world that account for complexity and go beyond just things we can see.” In a similar vein, Margaret Wheatley (2006) put forth: “The layers of complexity, the sense of things being beyond our control and out of control, are but signals of our failure to understand a deeper reality of organizational life, and of life in general.”

But there is much to be gained if we embrace complexity and many authors have provided some guidance. An article in the Harvard Business Review (Sullivan, September 2011) was titled

Embracing Complexity: You Can’t Avoid It, But Your Business Can Profit from It. Shaw (2002) noted her excitement at the “potential of so-called complexity sciences for offering fresh insights in the phenomena of organizing.” Kiel (1994) put forth: “the science of complexity can help us better manage our organizations is in its initial stages.” Chassin (2013) pointed out the challenge of trying to harness control of complex systems and advocated for the development of a foundation based in math and science as a means of managing complex systems. Axelrod and Cohen (2000) addressed the challenge directly in their book entitled Harnessing

Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier where they attempt to apply complexity science to organizational management (but struggle to provide a clear way to do so). They are not to be faulted; applying complexity science is more of an attempt to explore a philosophical concept than to apply a straightforward methodology (at least at this juncture in time).

This challenge of applying complexity science to human organizations is why this paper proposes using the ecosystem approach (as informed by concepts underlying complexity science) with our human organizations. As has been established, ecosystems are complex adaptive systems and we have been studying how ecosystems work for a long time (and we have been interacting with them for an even longer time). Whereas we do not have much of an intuitive feel for complexity science, we do have strong concepts and intuition (along with much data) regarding how ecosystems function. This concept has led to the development of the ecosystem approach to management and its application in real-world ecosystems has demonstrated much improved outcomes over the command-and-control management styles previously attempted. As such, it is worth trying to use the ecosystem approach to

46 management with our human institutions in an attempt to realize similar outcomes in terms of healthy functioning and inherent resiliency.

CHAPTER FIVE

OVERVIEW OF HUMAN INSTITUTIONS

In this section, we move to a brief discussion of human institutions and their associated issues. By institutions, this paper means most any type of human organization, not just businesses (though much of the discussion centers on U.S. corporations).

How we structure and operate our human organizations is a topic of great interest because most organizations are not healthy. The employee engagement numbers are depressing.

According to Seijts and Crim (2006): “Twenty-nine percent of employees are actively engaged in their jobs; fifty-four percent of employees are not engaged; and seventeen percent of employees are actively disengaged.” There is need for change in the way we structure and perform our work. According to Aversa (2010): “Only 45 percent of Americans are satisfied with their work.”

We know this intuitively and it is well-documented in the literature and in surveys [cf.

Aversa, 2010; Barwick, 2008]. Nearly all modern day organizations utilize some form of a linear, mechanistic, command-and-control approach to organizational structure and operation [cf.

Thompson, 2008] and this is at the heart of the problem. The natural world – and despite our best efforts to exercise control, the organizational world – are inherently nonlinear and that makes managing a challenge, as noted by Kiel (1994): “The relatively undeveloped state of management theory building reflects the nonlinear world we live in. The world of instability, disorder, and change seems to stay at least one step ahead of our intellectual efforts to create a comprehensive management theory.”

Human institutions have lost much of their adaptive capability and with it their resilience.

Typically, one or two disruptive events are enough to bring an organization tumbling down.

This is supported by Burgelman and Grove (2007): “It is generally acknowledged that relatively few companies survive as independent entities for very long periods of time. For instance, of the top 100 US-based industrial companies listed in Fortune magazine in 1965, only 19 remained in the top 100 in 2005.” That is less than one-in-five top-performing companies still highly performing just forty years later – about half the average lifespan of an American citizen.

Burgelman and Grove attribute this to corporations basing their strategies on predictable, linear, and stable situations – which do not exist for very long. According to the authors: “We think that an important reason for this lack of institutional longevity is that most of the time companies operate in a stable industry structure and develop a strategy-making process geared toward coping with linear strategic dynamics, which are relatively easy to understand and predict, but at some times in their evolution they face nonlinear strategic dynamics that overwhelm their capacity for strategy-making.”

The fundamental problem is that, for far too long, we have built bureaucracies that collapse under their own weight of policies and procedures. Instead of creating cultures which encourage innovation, individual autonomy, and facilitating collective wisdom, we stifle the very energy that will keep our organizations and personnel from suffering the debilitating fate of unchecked entropy. We have lost our capacity to react to change and instead smother ourselves in the tyranny of maintaining the status quo.

And that status quo includes working people at a frenetic pace and forcing them to constantly multitask, rather than allowing each person to focus on what they need to

49 accomplish in the way they see fit. This multitasking comes at a cost. According to Hamilton

(2008): “Don’t believe the multitasking hype, scientists say. New research shows that we humans aren’t as good as we think we are at doing several things at once … Instead, we switch our attention from task to task extremely quickly.” This sentiment is supported by Schwartz

(2010): “How can such a counterproductive way of working persist? The answer is grounded in a simple assumption, deeply embedded in organizational life and in our own belief systems. It’s that human beings operate most productively in the same one-dimensional way that computers do: continuously, at high speeds, for long periods of time, running multiple programs at the same time. … Unlike computers, human beings have the potential to grow and develop, to increase our depth, complexity and capacity over time.”

In many ways, we no longer treat individuals as individuals – we expect them to perform as if they are executing a computer code – and this comes at a significant cost. We have given up a meaningful part of our humanness and lost the fulfillment of vocation. Gunaratan (2002) suggested we, as individuals, are “just beginning to realize that we have overdeveloped the material aspects of existence at the expense of the deeper emotional and spiritual aspects, and we are paying the price for that error.” This also translates to organizations. As we have focused our organizational pursuits on profits – above more meaningful endeavors, including resiliency to keep the organizations functional over the long term – we find our organizations suffering from numerous maladies. These maladies are primarily related to the inertia described by Tushman and O’Reilly (1996): “Firms that have been successful may suffer from life-threatening inertia – inertia that results from the very congruence that made the firm successful in the first place . . . Older, larger firms develop structural and cultural inertia – the

50 organizational equivalent of high cholesterol. As companies grow, they develop structures and systems to handle the increased complexity of the work.” But it is the very processes developed during these stable times of growth that preclude making adaptations when the environment inevitably changes. Tushman and O’Reilly noted: “when confronted with discontinuous change, the very culture that fostered success can quickly become a significant barrier to change . . . Cultural inertia, because it is so ephemeral and difficult to attack directly, is a key reason managers often fail to successfully introduce revolutionary change – even when they know it is needed.” There comes a time when change is necessary and if the entity cannot reinvent itself, it will diminish and eventually no longer exist, per Anne Mulcahy, the former

CEO at Xerox, who stated: “Companies disappear because they can’t reinvent themselves” (as quoted in George, 2008).

As change in our world has sped up, organizations have tried to make changes. These changes frequently manifest in either the way the organization is structured or the manner in which it is managed. Bolman and Deal (2003) explored the reframing of organizations. Bridges

(2000) looked at the character of organizations. Eoyang and Holladay (2013) investigated how to leverage uncertainty in the organization. Esade and McKelvey (2010) assessed a complexity science bridge between organizational modernist and postmodernist perspectives; and Clegg et al. (2013) had a chapter in their book entitled Complexity Science and Organization Studies.

Bennet and Bennet (2008) document the history of managerial decision-making techniques and note that until the early 1970s, bureaucratic hierarchy led the way. The authors referenced

Chris Argyris, who described the “introduction of ‘rational’ management – which substituted formal calculations for judgment and instinct (Argyris, 1971), though this was considered

51 foreign and risky. Bennet and Bennet then discuss how in the 1990s, mathematical and statistical techniques were used, but managers “had begun to explore the human ‘qualitative’ side of decision-making dealing with probabilities, preferences, and propensities” (Sashkin,

1990). The authors concluded that given the complexity and rate of change “decision-makers at the point of action (residing at all levels throughout the organization) must increasingly rely on their intuition and judgment.”

This suggests the tide may have begun to change away from a wholly rational approach to an allowance for a diverse variety of organizational models, structures, processes, and management styles. Hesselbein, Goldsmith, and Beckhard (1997) considered organizations of the future; Morgan (2014) explored the future of work itself; Smith and Lewis (2011) considered a dynamic equilibrium model for organizing; and Seddon (2005) argued for freedom from command-and-control.

Along these lines of thought, many forms of organization have been proposed and attempted. Purser and Cabana (1998) noted the change in certain emerging organizations:

“Once there were pyramids, departments, leaders, troops; now there are webs, nodes, communities, networks. Once there was continuous improvement and incremental change; now we see continuous discontinuous change.” Back in 1975, Steele looked at open organizations. Connor (1998) coined the term ‘nimble organizations’ and described nimbleness as “the ability for an organization to consistently succeed in unpredictable, contested environments by implementing important changes more efficiently and effectively than its competitors.” Fradette and Michaud (1998) discussed their concept of what they term a kinetic organization: “In physics, any body in motion – a molecule of water heated to boiling, a

52 hammer striking an anvil, a rocket blasting off – possesses kinetic energy. In the same way, a kinetic enterprise moves, instantly responding to new demands and seizing new opportunities, adapting and evolving with every tick of the clock. It is very different, in structure and behavior, from the traditional corporation as we know it.” Tushman and O’Reilly (1996) introduced the term ‘ambidextrous’: “To remain successful over long periods, managers and organizations must be ambidextrous – able to implement both incremental and revolutionary change.”

Pasternak and Viscio (1998) recommended the centerless corporation: “The current paradigm under which businesses are built and run is a century old. … The next generation of leading firms will be the ones best able to deal with complexity. They will step out of the endless debate of centralization or decentralization and will do both at the same time.” Similarly,

Greenwald (2008) explored organizations through a lens of management without control.

Bernstein et al. (2016) noted: “Holacracy and other forms of self-organization have been getting a lot of press. Proponents hail them as ‘flat’ environments that foster flexibility, engagement, productivity, and efficiency. Critics say they’re naïve, unrealistic experiments” [cf. Robertson,

2015 and Robinson and Robinson, 2014]. Haeckel (1999) discussed ‘sense-and-respond’ adaptive enterprises. Dee Hock (1999) introduced the term Chaordic (i.e., chaos + order) organization for the type of changes he implemented at Visa (see also McCarter and White,

2014). In addition, there are numerous other types of self-organizing structures which have emerged and are undergoing their own struggles to survive and evolve and emerge – such as

Agile, Podularity, Panarchy, and Teal. This is an area of active research [cf. Dyer and Ericksen,

2008; Haigh and Hoffman, 2014; Gotts, 2007; Gunderson and Holling, 2001; Winn and Pogutz,

2013; and Laloux, 2015].

These varying organizational types all offer one or more aspect regarding the ecosystem approach to management discussed in this paper, especially the need for constant adaptation to changing environments and the necessity to enhance the freedom of the individual to pursue the realization of the intended purpose of the organization. However, they do not embrace the totality of the required shift of the entire organization to structures and processes emulating the principle underlying the ecosystem approach. This is addressed in the following chapter.

CHAPTER SIX

APPLYING THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO HUMAN INSTITUTIONS

As has been discussed, ecosystems are complex and human organizations are complex. As such, structuring and managing either of them effectively is a complex problem. In this context, we apply the oft-paraphrased words of H.L. Mencken (1920): “Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.” A simple answer won’t get us out of our complex problems, but applying the way in which nature encompasses complexity is our best hope to realize a more functional reality.

It is a bit of an understatement to suggest humans do not readily embrace nature’s principles regarding the structure and operation of our organizations. We seem to believe our own human constructs are the optimal design and believe ever more control is necessary. This is similar to the way we have undertaken industrialized agricultural – which has proven to be workable in the short term, but is clearly unsustainable for the long term – and forest resource management – which has resulted in an unmitigated disasters [cf. Martell, 2007]. As previously mentioned, we have even applied our organizational approaches to try to solve our challenges with the natural environment, e.g., Down to Earth: Applying Business Principles to

Environmental Management (Reinhardt, 2000). And, properly, we look at ways to make our organizations more environmentally friendly, e.g., Greening Your Business: The Hands-On Guide to Creating a Successful and Sustainable Business (Sitarz, 2008). Clearly, we need to operate our businesses – and all human endeavors – in an environmentally sustainable manner, but as has been discussed, this is different from enhancing resiliency. This paper instead focuses on

55 applying what nature has to offer – through what is considered an ecosystem approach – to make human organizations more resilient and to function highly over the long term.

The application of nature’s principles applied to organizations has been explored to some extent. Organizations such as The Biomimicry Institute (biomimicry.org) and books such as

Bioteams (Thompson, 2008); The Wisdom of Wolves (Towery, 1997); and The Wisdom of the

Hive (Seeley, 1996) address this issue directly, although primarily through a single lens or through a single ecological principle (e.g., evolution) and apply it as an organizational model [cf.

Annunzio, 2001; Aldrich, 1999a; and Aldrich, 1999b]. Even the normally stodgy Harvard

Business Review will occasionally have an article related to biomimicry in organizations [cf.

Winston, 2009].

However, a turn toward acceptance may be on the horizon – the January/February 2016 issue of the Harvard Business Review hit the “ecosystem approach” directly with an article by

Reeves, Levin and Ueda (2016) entitled The biology of corporate survival: Natural ecosystems hold surprising lessons for business. The authors discuss how business environments are becoming more diverse, dynamic, interconnected, and less predictable. They suggest both natural ecosystems and businesses are complex adaptive systems where local events and interactions “can cascade and reshape the entire system” resulting in emergence leading to continual changes and cycles of “local interaction, emergence, and feedback.” In doing so, the outcomes become far less predictable than what managers have grown accustom to dealing with. But, importantly, resilience is born out of these cycles and the loss of predictability is minor for the great gain of resilience.

A fundamental problem with the approach taken by Reeves, Levin and Ueda (2016) is that they treat a human organization as an actual ecosystem as found in nature. This is improper and misleading. Human organizations do exhibit some similarities to natural ecosystems (as has been discussed in this paper), but structuring and managing an organization as an actual ecosystem will lead to failure. For example, an ecosystem in nature has much greater diversity

– and typically much more redundancy (see Scheffer, 2015) – than our organizations (see

Lerner, 1986) and because of this, ecosystems have many, many more interactions leading more naturally to the self-organization and emergence we seek. By contrast, we must use an ecosystem approach with our organizations to set the structure and processes – and then put an emphasis on constant adaptation – to amplify all the necessary factors that lead to self- organization and emergence. This will take us significantly forward toward the resilience we seek.

What does applying the ecosystem approach to an organization mean? It is about putting into place the factors that can lead to the emergence of complexity. This means having a clear sense of mission; strong emphasis on communication (collaboration/conflict; feedback loops; and avoiding miscommunication); true diversity; focus on allowing individuals to act (and interact) freely to meet the intent of the mission; and revised hierarchy and processes that place mid-level managers (the keystone species) in the radically important position of facilitating mass interaction. Fryer (2011b), in an article entitled The Thriving Organization: The

Application of Complexity Theory to Businesses, provided us insight towards this end: “One way of becoming a thriving organization is to move from seeing the business as some kind of

57 machine in which improvements to the parts will improve the whole and to start seeing the business as wholly integrated system and work at improving the whole.”

Earlier in this paper, complexity science was put forth as offering an intriguing way of applying adaptive systems principles to organizations, but also discussed was how attempts to do so have proven very challenging because of the difficulty in implementing these principles to realize the outcomes of complexity; namely, self-organization, emergence, and resilience. This paper also discussed the ecosystem approach to management and how the implementation of this philosophy in how humans interact with ecosystems has shown great promise. The application of the ecosystem approach metaphor to human organizations was then explored.

The contention is that applying the paradigmatic ecosystem approach to human organizations is more straightforward than trying to applying complexity science. It is of particular importance to note the proposed application is not a singular mechanism broadly applied (such as some of the more faddish managerial techniques mentioned in the previous chapter and elsewhere), but rather it is addresses every aspect of an organization in a fundamental way.

Recall the ecosystem approach definitions put forward: Per the UN (n.d.): “the concept is generally understood to encompass the management of human activities, based on the best understanding of the ecological interactions and processes, so as to ensure that ecosystems structure and functions are sustained for the benefit of present and future generations.” Per the Convention on Biological Diversity (2017a): “An ecosystem approach is based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies focused on levels of biological organization, which encompass the essential structure, processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment.” It is important in applying the ecosystem approach for us to

58 remember human organizations are not actual natural ecosystems, which are defined by

Lawrence (2005) as a “community of different species interdependent on each other, together with their non-living environment, which is relatively self-contained in terms of energy flow, and is distinct from neighboring communities.” For human organizations, we instead need to understand the ecosystem approach and apply the principles in a manner conducive to human activities.

The definition for an ecosystem can be roughly applied to a human organization, so it follows that applying the ecosystem approach has a reasonable basis and provides a reasonable point of entry as a clear example of what works and what is to be gained by the incorporation of the principles. Others agree. William Cooper (as quoted in Benyus, 1997) suggested: “The natural world is full of models for a more sustainable economic system – prairies, coral reefs, oak- hickory forests, old-growth redwoods and Douglas fir forests, and more. These ecosystems do everything we want to do. They self-organize into a diverse and integrated community or organisms with a common purpose – to maintain their presence in one place, make the most of what is available, and endure over the long haul” and Gregory Bateson (1979) observed “The major problems in the world are the results of the difference in how nature works and the way people think.”

As we consider how to implement the ecosystem approach, we should reflect upon the sentiment of Ken Bevis (2016): “Wildlife is a response to whatever conditions you give it. We think we manage wildlife. We don’t manage wildlife. We manage habitat” (emphasis added).

This is of great importance. Our efforts should be focused not on managing the individuals in our organizations, but rather on the ‘habitat’, that is, the structure and the processes – what

59 we might consider our own effort at ecosystem engineering. We then provide the baseline from which individuals may seek optimal outcomes. This is top-down approach for establishing the habitat (i.e., structure) – and a bottom-up approach (i.e., processes based on interdependencies) previously described for how ecosystems function. Once we have established the structure, we allow the processes to be primarily dictated by the individual behaviour – with the accent on the latter. This follows the suggestion by Nye (2014): “In top- down organizations, everything follows a chain of command. … But nature works the other way around. In the natural scheme of things, changes made in the past are the only things that determine whether or not any feature of the organization is retained in the future. There’s no planning. If there were a day-to-day manager of nature, he or she would have a cushy gig, because he or she wouldn’t have to do anything. … Nature builds ecosystems, in all of their complex glory, from the bottom up.”

A prime example of building habitat is the work done by beavers [cf. Campbell, 2016], which are often referred to as ‘ecosystem engineers.’ This habitat building results in a more robust environment in terms of diversity, as documented by Wright, Jones, and Flecker (2002) who discussed how the habitat developed by the work of beavers increases species richness at the landscape scale. Jones, Lawton, and Shachak (1994) noted that many organisms, in addition to beavers, can be considered to be ecosystem engineers and suggested a definition: “Ecosystem engineers are organisms that directly or indirectly modulate the availability of resources to other species, by causing physical state changes in biotic or abiotic materials. In so doing they modify, maintain and create habitat.” Byers, et al. (2006) suggest ecosystem engineering is “a

60 ubiquitous process of abiotic environmental modification by species that often has consequences for populations, communities, ecosystem functioning and landscape structure.”

However, fully understanding and implementing ecosystem engineering can be challenging, as noted by Jones, Lawton, and Shachak (1994): “Yet there is no common language to describe what ecosystem engineers do, no formal structure to model their effects, and no general theory round which to organise understanding of the process.” Again, we are faced with dealing with concepts and processes which are not straightforward, that cast us into the forest primeval of uncertainty and paradox and unknown outcomes – a messiness to be addressed throughout the implementation of the ecosystem approach.

What the Ecosystem Approach is Not

Before discussing specific concepts associated with implementing the ecosystem approach in human organizations, it is important to delineate and discuss what the applied ecosystem approach is not.

Pilinkiene and Maciulus (2014) pointed out the term ‘ecosystem’ is a relatively new concept in the field of business research. They go on to note how researchers have suggested various applied ecosystem concepts: industrial ecosystem (Frosch & Gallopoulos, 1989; Korhonen

2001); digital business ecosystem (Nachira, 2002); business ecosystem (Iansiti & Levien, 2004;

Moore, 1993); an innovation ecosystem (Adner, 2006; Wessner, 2007; Yawson, 2009); and entrepreneurship ecosystem (Isenberg, 2010). Similarly, other authors have explored similar topics: Hannan and Freeman (1989) and Jagalgi, Todd, and Scherer (2005) wrote about organizational ecology; business ecosystems are discussed by Anggraeni, den Hartigh, and

Zegveld (2007); den Hartigh, Tol, and Visscher (2006); Vidgen and Wang (2006); Peltoniemi and

Vuori (c. 2005); Peltoniemi (2006); and Moore (2006). There is also a wide variety of associated research in topics such as how change affects ecosystem services (Daily, 1997) from a business perspective (Houdet et al., 2009) and material and energy flows in industry and ecosystem networks (Suh, 2004).

Although these topic areas provide valuable insight, they do not specifically utilize the ecosystem approach as applied to human organizations and are only marginally relevant to the concept put forward in this paper.

Implementing the Ecosystem Approach in Human Organizations

In implementing the ecosystem approach, it is imperative to maintain a “top-down” approach in terms of implementing structure (i.e., building habitat) and even more emphasis on the ‘bottom-up’ perspective of allowing the behaviour of individuals to be free to develop the processes that result in the requisite interactions and interdependencies.

The following principles of structure and processes (and other considerations) are suggested for implementing the ecosystem approach and these are discussed in this section of the paper:

 A clear sense of purpose and objectives that permeate all aspects of the organization.

 Nothing should become rigid; everything must emphasize adaptability.

 Each individual requires freedom to do what they deem necessary to fulfill the purpose.

 Interconnectedness and communication leading to interdependence.

 True diversity must be cultivated and maintained.

 Competition and cooperation must be promoted across all activities and all scales.

 Ecotones must be maintained because that is creativity is enhanced.

 Recognize the role of boundaries and ensure there are communication corridors.

 A special emphasis on maintaining the keystone species, which is middle management.

 Understand the importance of feedback loops.

 Recognize the concept of ecological time and the need for patience.

 Recognize where each part of the organization is relative to succession and phases.

 Embrace the messy process.

Two specific expected outcomes associated with implementing the ecosystem approach are also included in this section of the paper:

 The organization will experience a rewilding that makes it function in a new manner.

 The resilience of the organization to disturbances will be enhanced, helping ensure

longevity and high functioning.

The Applied Ecosystem Approach

Recall the statement by Ken Bevis provided at the start of this section: “We don’t manage wildlife. We manage habitat.” That is at the essence of applying the ecosystem approach to human organizations. We need to turn our focus to providing the proper structure (top-down) and facilitate the processes (bottom-up) and turn away from trying to control the individuals, but rather give them the freedom to fully interact in whatever way they determine to do so.

Furthermore, we must do so understanding there is a climate of constant change, so we must be constantly adapting.

We need to keep in mind the sentiment of Burkett et al. (2005): “Ecosystem management and species conservation can be more effective if predicated on a thorough understanding of both the linear and nonlinear responses to environmental change.” We have a long history of trying to understand the linear responses to change (with mixed results), but we are poorly equipped to understand the nonlinear responses. This is where complexity science nudges us and we utilize the ecosystem approach to establish the ‘habitat’ and then monitor and adjust to the nonlinear responses, understanding the approach is messy and has less certainty regarding specific outcomes, but what will emerge is an organizational resilience to respond to minor and major disturbances plus an overall higher functioning.

The following subsections address the structure, processes, and other considerations relevant to applying the ecosystem approach to human organizations.

Clear Sense of Purpose

In the implementation of the ecosystem approach to the management of a natural ecosystem, it is necessary from the outset to gather the stakeholders and develop an overall sense of purpose and the corresponding objectives for the ecosystem. Adaptive management is then utilized over time in an effort to achieve the purpose and the objectives outlined for the ecosystem.

The need for everyone to understand the strategic intent and goals goes far back in time. In the 4th century B.C., Sun-tzu recognized the need for a clear sense of purpose among his warriors: “Induce people to have the same aim as the leadership, so they will share death and share life without fear of danger.” The intent of leadership should be to aim movements, not dictate them. Schrage (1989) wrote “Because valuable information and expertise are dispersed

64 throughout the organization, top management does not solve problems; it creates an environment in which people can identify and solve problems themselves.” Thus, managers should not force control; it is about identifying and communicating a high-level vision and then enabling each person to identify their individual paths forward to help realize the vision.

And that vision must be very well understood by all and create a compelling desire to achieve. Seijts and Crim (2006) told us: “Leaders must communicate a clear vision. … Success in life and organizations is, to a great extent, determined by how clear individuals are about their goals and what they really want to achieve.” This is echoed by Serrat (2009): “An organization’s vision (and associated mission and strategic direction) is a statement of ambitious and compelling strategic intent that provides the emotional and rational energy for an organization’s journey. If staff are to trust the organization, the vision must be clear and represent an attainable stretch that emphasizes the importance of contributions in achieving it.

It cannot be a statement that is devoid of action. The role of managers is help individuals and teams translate the organization’s vision into their own personal vision.”

When the organization’s vision is translated to a personal vision by each individual, those individuals understand the great value of working together and seek to do so to realize the intended outcomes. This individual behavior leads to an emergence of an operational synchronicity that cannot be dictated, but rather occurs naturally, as in the concept put forth by

Connor (1998): “Envision a room full of tuning forks, with each one vibrating at a different rate and emitting its own particular sound. Some produce a high pitch; others generate a low tone.

Now visualize that all these factors (tuning forks) are pulsating at once as they begin to influence each other, a collective resonance starts to form. The result is that all the separately

65 vibrating components converge into one vacillating cadence.” This is similar to what is implied by Wheatley (2006): “We need to able to trust that something as simple as a clear core of values and vision, kept in motion through continuing dialogue, can lead to order.” Kaplan and

Norton (2006) wrote about alignment of actions based on a shared sense of purpose and relate this to eight-person racing shells: “Imagine a shell populated by eight highly conditioned and trained rowers, but with each rower having a different idea about how to achieve success. …

The winning crew inevitably rows in beautiful synchronism; each rower strokes powerfully but consistently with all the others, guided by a coxswain, who has responsibility for pacing and steering the course of action.” Along these lines, Lencioni (2002) wrote ‘If you could get all the people in an organization rowing in the same direction, you could dominate any industry, in any market, against any competition.”

It is important to note there needs to be a clear sense of purpose with objectives that help in defining how that purpose is being realized – but what is not intended is for there to be a specific outcome that, once realized, makes everyone think that everything has been achieved.

Allen and Boulton (2011) warned about the danger imposed by this outlook and the loss of redundancy we implement in an effort to achieve an end goal: “The evolution of complex, resilient natural systems is linked to the retention of mechanisms of adaptability with them and reflects an underlying lack of specific purpose. Human beings, on the other hand, want to improve, direct or control systems to some particular end and because of this tend to eliminate any unnecessary parts and to streamline operations.” The authors caution this leads to vulnerability because capabilities are lost that would allow adaptation to changing circumstances.

Adaptability

Adaptability is at the core of making the ecosystem approach to management effective.

Nature is replete with examples of the need to adapt to a changing environment, such as the extinction of some large species (Cardillo et al., 2005). Ranjay Gulati, a professor at Harvard

Business School, regarding the move towards adaptability: “The fascinating juxtaposition today is, big companies want to be like small companies” (as quoted in Green and Clough, 2016). The inference behind this comment is that small companies have attributes which make them more adaptable, but adaptability is not relegated to only small companies and groups. It is a mindset that works best with a workforce which understands the need for constant change and who have the freedom and initiative to make such changes.

Several authors have addressed adaptability. Edson (2009) suggested the following:

”Adaptive capacity is the ability to maintain function and integrity under new constraints while operating at a new level of conscious awareness. This adaptive capacity allows for a higher tolerance for change.” According to Waldrop (1996) and based on Dee Hock’s ideas, the fundamental organizational principles are as follows: The organization must be adaptable and responsive to changing conditions, while preserving overall cohesion and unity of purpose.

Morris (2009) described adaptive leadership: “It is specifically about change; builds on the past rather than repudiating it; achieves organizational adaptation through continuous experimentation; heavily relies on diversity (i.e., talents, skills, experience, and perspectives); ensures that new adaptations significantly displace, re-regulate, or rearrange whatever is defective, obsolete, or irrelevant; and usually requires (as do biological adaptations) time,

67 patience, and persistence.” Thus, adaptability allows the organization to stay true to its core purpose by being responsive to changes and doing so constantly and over the long term.

The Individual

In the ecosystem approach, the individuals (i.e., the wildlife, both plants and animals) within an ecosystem are not managed, but rather interact freely in a manner which leads to interdependence. Aldo Leopold famously discussed his ‘Land Ethic’ in A Sand County Almanac

(1949) which included: “All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts.”

It is important to keep in mind the role of the individual in nature and the importance of the accompanying interdependencies. Miller (2010) told us: “We call an ant colony self-organizing because nobody’s in charge, nobody knows what needs to be done, and nobody tells anybody else what to do. Each ant goes through its day responding to whatever happens to it, to the other ants it bumps into, and to changes in the environment – what scientists call ‘local’ knowledge. When an ant does something, it affects other ants, and what they do affects still others, and that impact ripples through the ant colony.”

The very reason an ant colony is able to function is because the efforts of the individuals include mass interactions leading to interdependence. It is important to understand these ants are truly individuals, not exact robotic duplicates of each other. They are not pre-programmed automatons – the have the freedom to make their own decisions based on what they know; that is, their local knowledge. And each ant is an individual with its own scent; according to

Pittalwala (2015) ants smell “ant body odor,” helping them distinguish intruders from safe ants in their colonies.

In a similar manner, other eusocial insects are individuals with individual behaviors. Castro

(2011) stated that wasps are able to recognize each other's faces and ScienceDaily (March 8,

2012) reported on a study published in the journal Science by Liang et al. (2012) that suggested individual bees have personalities. According to University of Illinois professor Gene Robinson, who led the study: “The findings offer a new window on the inner life of the honey bee hive, which once was viewed as a highly regimented colony of seemingly interchangeable workers taking on a few specific roles (nurse or forager, for example) to serve their queen. Now it appears that individual honey bees actually differ in their desire or willingness to perform particular tasks.” The key here is that even in a eusocial colony, each individual is free to make its own decisions in a manner which it determines based on local knowledge and with an intent to further the core purpose of the colony. As such, the colony is a collection of individuals interacting in a collective manner, not a singular mass of undifferentiated living matter. This aligns with sentiment of noted by Resnick (1999): “A flock is not a big bird.” To this we can add that an ant colony is not a large ant, a school of fish is not a large fish, and a wolf pack is not a large wolf, but because of the action of the individuals, these collections of individuals become the respective flock, colony, school, and pack that have higher-order functioning than the sum of the parts (i.e., an emergent property).

In fact, it is the interactions of the individuals that form the social web from which emerges the capabilities and effective behavior from which emerges self-organization. Goss et al. (1989) studied the Argentine ant Iridomyrmexhumilis. They noted that despite the limited individual capacity of each ant for orientation, the ants - by interacting with each other via their trail pheromone - are capable of selecting with great reliability the shortest route between nest and

69 food. Goss et al. go on to state: “It is important to note that the selection of the shortest branch is not the result of individual ants comparing the different lengths of each branch, but is instead a collective and self-organizing process, resulting from the interactions between the ants marking in both directions.” Georgantzas (c. 2000) wrote about patterns of collective movements of schools of fish and flocks of birds and how these movements result from local interactions, not from a central manager: “When avoiding danger or changing course, they generally move together in an elegantly synchronized manner. Sometimes the flock or shoal moves as if it were a single animal. There is no head fish or bird leader, however, that tells others how to move. Computer simulations reproduce this behavior by letting individuals interact according to a few simple rules such as keeping a minimum distance from others and following the average direction of neighbors’ moves. A global coherent pattern emerges out of local interactions.”

A crucial point from this discussion is the need for us to establish a culture that allows individuals to chart their own path and encourage significant interaction to enhance problem solving and allow the best solutions to emerge from the apparent clutter without an attempt at centralized command. This is supported by Miller (2010): “Social insects such as ants, bees, and termites distribute problem solving among many individuals, each of which is following simple instructions but none of which see the big picture. Nobody’s in charge. Nobody’s telling anyone else what to do. Instead, individuals in such groups interact with one another in countless ways until a pattern emerges – a tipping point of motion or meaning – that enables a colony of ants to find the nearest pile of seeds, or a school of herring to dodge a hungry seal.”

In sports, we develop game plans and go over them in excruciating detail. We conduct drills to reinforce particular behaviors. But the games are mostly won and lost – not based on the validity of the game plan – but on the unplanned moments that occur during each game during which the players improvise, using their instinct the achieve the overriding objective: for example, a baseball runner taking an extra base when the right fielder momentarily bobbles the ball or a football safety breaking to intercept the pass rather than staying back in coverage. The same is often true in combat – it is the creativity and interaction of the individual soldiers on the ground that win the skirmishes and battles – and eventually the war. But so much of what we do as humans is plan and strategize in ways that try to control the movements and behaviors of the individuals. And we do little - if anything at all – to facilitate the ability of the individual to think and act based on their situational knowledge in a manner aligned with the overall strategic mission and objectives. This is a crucial mistake.

Despite all our efforts, we cannot control the uncontrollable and the actions of individuals are inherently uncontrollable if the individuals are allowed to do what they decide they need to do based on their situational knowledge. By forcing some level of control, we may limit some of the downside risks, but we certainly limit the upside optimization of performance and results. We kill the motivation of the individual in the name of damage control while trying to impart our will. We shackle individuals with policies and procedures and force them to slog through bureaucratic quicksand and then we wonder why we don’t have an engaged workforce performing at a high level. An engaged workforce is necessary for dealing with the inherent unpredictability. Whichard and Kees (2006) told us: “Employees with the ability to think independently and share their findings are the single best solution for ensuring corporate

71 competitiveness. Unpredictability is a given, and the best way to address it is through engaged, empowered employees with heartfelt commitment to the organization rather than relying on outdated operations manuals and indisputable, hierarchical protocols.”

Some management thinkers have long recognized the importance of interactions by individuals. Lillian Gilbreth (of Cheaper by the Dozen fame) is considered to be the first industrial/organizational psychologist and devoted her life studying the psychology of management. In 1914, she published a book on this subject and made this observation

(Gilbreth, 1914): “Since we have come to realize that management signifies the relationship between the managing and the managed in doing work, a new realization of its importance has come about.” More than a century later, this ‘realization’ does not seem to have taken hold to much extent. The focus remains on using individuals to obtain short-term gains, rather than a focus on relationships with the individuals. Lichtenstein, Uhl-Bien, and Marion (2006), in an article about leading in complex adaptive systems, discussed the findings of Scott (2004) regarding the nature of emerging organizational trends and argue for “increased attention to the relationships through which organizational activity is conducted.”

The need for an engaged, autonomous, interactive workforce using local information – one not directed from a central command – is a subject which has attracted much discussion.

Cohen (1993) noted: “Establishing sufficient autonomy to allow the full use of each person’s talents yet inspiring all to work together toward the overall objectives of the organization is the core human challenge of a running a company.” Thompson (2008) defined a networked team as one “made of dispersed and physically distant individuals who are interconnected and operate as an organic entity. These individuals do not utilize traditional reporting hierarchies;

72 thus ‘command and control’ approaches are totally ineffective.” Kanter (2010) suggested

“Hemmed in by rules and treated as unimportant, people get even by overcontrolling their own turf. They slow things down by failing to take action. Negativity and low aspirations show up in behaviors psychologists call defensive pessimism, learned helplessness, and passive aggression.” Lawler, Mohrman, and Benson (2001) wrote about the need for locating decision making at the lowest levels and the role of management as an enabler and culture setter:

“Perhaps the most important overall focus in the work on employee involvement concerns locating decisions at the lowest level in the organization. Employee involvement consistently advocates a bottom-up approach to management.”

Given such freedom to interact and make the decisions, the bottom-up approach requires individuals to be responsible for their own actions and realize such actions will lead to the emergence of higher-order functionality. What becomes incumbent upon such individuals with this free reign is that they do not turn back to senior management to lead them out of difficult issues which will inevitably arise – so this puts the onus on management to adopt a different form of leadership. Margret Wheatley (2017) suggested the following: “We need to abandon our reliance on the leader-as-hero and invite in the leader-as-host. We need to support those leaders who know that problems are complex, who know that in order to understand the full complexity of any issue, all parts of the system need to be invited in to participate and contribute. We, as followers, need to give our leaders time, patience, forgiveness; and we need to be willing to step up and contribute.”

Interconnectedness/Interdependence/Communication

The ecosystem approach requires recognition of the need for mass interaction among all the entities to develop interconnectedness and interdependence that spreads local knowledge and allows information to move and be acted upon quickly for adaptive change. Capra and Luisa

(2014) wrote about the systems view of life in its biological dimensions and provided an overview of the interrelatedness and energy/resource flow in ecosystems: “It is well known that no individual organism can exist in isolation. Animals depend on the photosynthesis of plants for their energy needs; plants depend on the CO2 produced by animals, as well as on the nitrogen fixed by microorganisms at their roots; and together plants, animals, and microorganisms regulate the entire biosphere and maintain the conditions conductive to life.”

This trophic structuring is the natural hierarchy that results in the proper functioning of the systems – and the important principle from this structuring is the necessity for the interconnected, interdependent aspects.

However, we often don’t recognize the interconnected world in which we live and this is a significant mistake. We are trained to drill down, to scrutinize the minutiae, to take the pieces apart and turn them over and study them from every angle. But we are not as good when it comes to putting the pieces back together – and we really struggle to see how all the parts interact with the other parts and how the wholes interact with the other wholes. Johnson

(2009) offered insight in this regard and pointed out the challenge of making the connections:

“In an everyday context, the negative effect of overlooking similarities between supposed unrelated systems is akin to someone becoming an expert on the detailed cultural life of New

York, Washington, and Boston – yet never realizing these cities have a shared culture because

74 of their location on the East Coast of the United States.” We humans are simply not well programmed to see the shared cultures and the subsequent interactions and interrelationships.

In part, that is because interrelationships are typically not obvious. Wohlleben (2016) wrote regarding the possibility of trees communicating with each other through underground fungi networks (though other scientists dispute what trees do can be considered communication).

Another interdependence which is non-intuitive is quantum entanglement [i.e., certain electron pairs, which Horodecki et al. (2009) referred to as “nonclassical correlations between subsystems”]. Zukav (1979) explored this concept further: “The philosophical implication of quantum mechanics is that all of the things in our universe (including us) that appear to exist independently are actually parts of one all-encompassing organic pattern, and that no parts of that pattern are ever really separate from it or from each other.” Interdependence is all around us and we need to begin to recognize its existence and importance, even if we continue to not see it in front of us.

The need to achieve interconnectedness and interdependence is one of the key challenges regarding implementation of the ecosystem approach in a human organization, but such interdependence is itself complex, as per Cohen (1993): “One difficulty encountered in trying to manage the interdependencies between organizational units occurs because of the complexity of the interdependence itself.”

It is possible that our ancestors, who were typically much more in touch with natural processes, may have had a better means of sustaining effective organizations and constantly innovating to improve their existence through communicating more effectively. Nerburn

(1999), in his book entitled The Wisdom of Native Americans, spoke about the tradition among

75 many tribes, when it came to matters of importance, was not to carry on contentious dialogues:

“Rather, each person listened attentively until his or her turn came to speak, and then he or she rose and spoke without interruption about the heart of the matter under consideration.” It is these types of deep discussion and dialogue that contribute to ensuring individuals are fully informed and have the opportunity for mass interaction in an effort to build interdependence.

It is this interdependence that is the mechanism by which adaptive change can quickly be accomplished and such change is the basis for realizing resilience. It comes back to effective communication, as addressed by Heifetz, Grashow, and Linsky (2009): “Building resilience is similar to training for a marathon. … In an organizational context, this kind of training can take the form of staying in a tough conversation longer than you normally would, naming an undiscussable problem facing your team, and not changing the subject at the first sarcastic joke designed to move off the uncomfortable topic.” This level of communication is absolutely essential and, according to CC Pace Systems (2011): “In a complex adaptive system, information is the lifeblood of change and adaptation.” This recognition of the role of information and interconnectedness is addressed by Smith and Lindsay (2014), who wrote about workplace interconnectedness leading to resilience and Hoque and Baer (2014), who wrote about how by recognizing that everything connects better enables us to transform and lead organizations.

Diversity

Diversity is essential to the healthy functioning of ecosystems in nature and diversity is a completely necessary aspect to be addressed in implementing the ecosystem approach in human organizations. Senge et al. (1994) quoted Michele Hunt: “Diversity is natural and brings richness to the world. Nature is diverse, and there is a critical balance that requires an

76 understanding of how all the pieces fit together and how each is important to the whole. This kind of understanding is just as important in organizations.”

To be effective, the diversity needs to be ‘true’ diversity in terms of background, education, personality, and all other factors, not just those factors which most human resource departments establish as ‘diversity goals.’ Two people might appear to be very similar in many ways, but if they have different philosophical approaches, that is an important diversity factor.

This is supported by Sullivan (2011), in a Harvard Business Review article regarding complexity and business, in which he documented his interview with Michael J. Mauboussin, who pointed out cognitive diversity is the key – congregating people with different training, experiences, personalities, and points of view to challenge each other and seek out ideas and solutions.

Achieving true diversity in an organization is a conscious effort. Weisbord and Janoff (2007) argued that achieving diversity in groups is not done by randomness, but rather by clear intent:

“If you organize random groups, with no basis in similarities, differences, or preferences, you are not ‘differentiating.’ You are just forming small groups.” The authors suggested you

“differentiate to integrate. Integration requires that people interact across boundaries of differences made explicit, seeking to build on all their resources and needs.”

Resilience is strongly correlated with diversity (and vice versa) according to Stanford

University (2012): “Diversity and resilience are interconnected. Resilience needs ecosystem diversity to resist or recover from disturbance, and resilience protects against diversity loss.

Together they influence ecosystem productivity and sustainability. Preserving diversity preserves resilience. Preserving resilience preserves diversity.”

Competition and Cooperation

Within nature’s ecosystems, there is constant competition and conflict in the struggle to grow and survive. There is also cooperation. For example, Morlon (2012) documented cooperation by microbes to resist competition and noted that social behavior in microorganisms has previously been documented by others [cf. Crespi, 2001; West et al., 2006;

Griffin et al., 2004; and Lee et al., 2010]. Implementing an ecosystem approach to human organizations requires a establishing a culture that encourages competition and cooperation to ensure issues are identified and resolved and the best ideas emerge. Importantly, as

Surowiecki (2004b) contended, “Competition reveals problems and cooperation solves them.”

However, competition, conflict, and cooperation are not always encouraged – and are not readily implemented. As noted by Light (2009), despite being ideas in good currency, neither

‘collaboration’ nor ‘adaptive management’ is practiced with any consistency and almost never together. Schrage (1989) cautioned: “Managers have to grasp that managing for collaboration demands nontraditional responses to complexity” and concludes the way tasking is typically performed suggests “managers are designing their problems for delegation, not collaboration.”

Schrage (1989) contended: “Organizations must recognize and reward collaboration as clearly and unambiguously as they have traditionally celebrated individual achievement. … Managers and leaders must take the time and care to issue challenges that actually encourage people to collaborate.”

These comments suggest competition, conflict, collaboration, and cooperation are not easily implemented and neither is consensus building, but the outcomes are worth the effort, as noted by Quick (1992): “Consensus decisions take time and patience, but the decisions that

78 result from a consensus are usually superior to decisions made by the brightest member of the group. This is probably because a group can generate and more realistically evaluate a number of options. There is usually a deeper commitment on the part of team members to carrying out the decisions.” Besides being difficult to implement, these activities are neither a linear nor a clear process. Lee and Glad (2011) reminded us: “Collaboration is supposed to be messy.” The authors stated: “... while collaboration seems to be the easy answer to most problems, it isn’t a very easy practice ... If you get more than one person in the room, you have dissonance. We are not saying that harmony is completely absent, but each person is unique with his or her own experience, belief and view on things. Ensuring each voice has a place to be heard and respected can often uncover clashes. Working with others is easy, but really rolling up your sleeves to fight for common achievement even when it means uncovering the ugliness – and examining it – is not.” And this ugliness can come in the form of conflict, as pointed out by Dym and Little (2004): “Whenever people get together to accomplish tasks, conflict is an inevitable by-product. Much of the conflict is healthy, a necessary part of exchanging ideas, comparing alternatives, and resolving differences of opinion.” This is reinforced by Senge (2006), who stated: “Contrary to popular myth, great teams are not characterized by an absence of conflict.

… The free flow of conflicting ideas is critical for creative thinking, for discovering new solutions no one individual would have come to on his own. Conflict becomes, in effect, part of the ongoing dialogue.”

The intent is that such dialogue will result in a hard-won battle of ideas and arguments, resulting ultimately in the best idea emerging with buy-in and cooperation from the participants. Brinckerhoff (2009) suggested: “By providing a positive structure for healthy

79 conflict to emerge, and for unhealthy conflict to be vented, you allow those who harbor a grudge, who have not had their say in the past, who have felt ‘muzzled,’ to get on their soapbox and have their say.” When they have had such an opportunity to contribute, they are likely to join up with the others. And there is a very positive outcome for getting individuals to cooperate, per Griss (2012), who reviewed a book by the eminent Harvard professor E.O.

Wilson entitled The Social Conquest of Earth (2012) in which it is stated research has shown “a group of cooperating individuals wins against a group with selfish members.”

Thus, it should be recognized that both competition and cooperation are both significant aspects of implementing the ecosystem approach, but doing so in a healthy manner represents an additional challenge to be addressed.

Boundaries, Corridors, and Ecotones

In natural ecosystems, there are boundaries and wildlife corridors and ecotones.

Implementing the ecosystem approach in human organizations requires addressing these structures and their associated processes by recognizing where there are boundaries (such as between groups or divisions or off-limit behavior); ensuring there are corridors to facilitate intersecting those boundaries; and setting the conditions to enhance the creativity that most readily occurs in ecotones.

Boundaries naturally exist. The trophic levels in an ecosystem represent the hierarchy and there is a basic boundary between such levels. A deep canyon is a form of a boundary. And boundaries can be found nearly everywhere in our organizations, as per Varzi (2011) who stated: “It is not an exaggeration to say that boundaries are at work in articulating every aspect of the reality with which we have to deal. They stand out in every map we draw of the world –

80 not only the cartographic world but the world of nature at large, as well as the sociocultural world that emerges through the weaves of our social and individual practices.” Eoyang (1997) argued: “Differentiation within a complex system allows for adaptation and boundaries mark the interfaces across which the changes take place. Boundaries in an organization can evolve naturally or they can be consciously designed. … The manager of a complex organization has a responsibility to pay attention to boundaries and the conditions they engender.” Physical distance between offices is an example of a boundary in a human organization – and this often leads to the communication boundary which manifests itself as an ‘us-versus-them’ mentality.

To realize the interactions and interdependencies previously described, reducing the effects of these boundaries is critical.

Not all boundaries are physical. Also critical is establishing boundaries on activities which do need to be limited, as espoused by Simons (2000) where managers “must also install brakes by communicating clearly to all employees the behaviors and opportunities that are off-limits. In other words, managers must tell subordinates what not to do and then encourage them to innovate and seek all possible opportunities – to drive as fast as possible – within those clearly defined boundaries.” It is by establishing clearly defined boundaries that the individuals know where they may function. Simon goes on to provide an analogy of imposing limits and boundaries by listing the Ten Commandments of the Judeo-Christian experience and showing how those commandments do not tell people what to do, but rather they decree what not to do.

The ecosystem approach is, in a manner of speaking, a way of rewilding an organization and this topic will be explored later in this paper. Bekoff (2014) offered that the success of

81 rewilding an ecosystem is strongly related to the wildlife corridors which are established. These corridors form the “connections or links among diverse geographical areas so that animals can roam as freely as possible with few if any disruptions to their movements. Ecosystems must be connected so that their integrity and wholeness are maintained or reestablished.” Bekoff went on to note how the connectivity provided by the corridors “fixes the central problem, that nature has become too fragmented, and the areas that remain protected (or are not yet exploited) are too isolated from one another.” Similar concepts regarding wildlife corridors are put forth by others [cf. Beier and Noss, 1998; Puth and Wilson, 2001; and Soule and Gilpin,

1991]. Thus, in implementing the ecosystem approach in human organizations, it is very important to ensure communication corridors exist, are maintained, and are regularly utilized throughout all aspects of the organization.

In an earlier section of the paper, the definition of ecotone was provided by Reece et al.

(2011) as those areas where the terrestrial areas grade into each other (termed intergradation).

Vogt et al. (1997) further suggested these areas have the highest biotic and/or abiotic variability and the maximum rate of change. Hurst (2012) contended “a forest – indeed every ecology – needs to create open patches within the population of its mature members to admit variety and renew itself.” This is the equivalent of light gaps in a forest.

In ecotones, there may be a lot of messiness, but ecotones are critically important because this is this is where creativity and innovation have the greatest opportunity to flourish. These are the skunkworks where new ideas are encouraged and tested and where renewal takes place. Zimmerman, Lindberg, and Plsek (1998) stated complex adaptive systems “thrive in an area of bounded instability on the border or edge of chaos. In this region, there is not enough

82 stability to have repetition or prediction, but not enough instability to create anarchy or to disperse the system. … In organizational settings, this is a region of highly creative energy.”

Similarly, Benner and Tushman (2003) contended “Organization and strategy research has stressed the need for organizations to simultaneously exploit existing capabilities while developing new ones.” As such, while the organization continues to exploit its niche capabilities, ecotones should be sought after and utilized to develop the new species of ideas to feed the constant adaptations that are necessary for the organization to continually prosper and survive. This is obviously applicable in the research and development departments and the other organizational settings facilitating creativity and innovation, but it is also applicable to every aspect of organizational life, extending beyond the traditional situations.

Keystone Species

Earlier in this paper, Vogt et al. (1997) were quoted as defining ‘keystone species’ as “a species that has a disproportionate effect on the persistence of other species and whose removal leads, often indirectly, to the loss of many other species in the community (i.e., decreased diversity).” These authors go on to provide the example of the dodo bird for how hard it can be to recognize the importance of an individual or component in a system and reference the work of Temple (1977). The dodo was a giant flightless pigeon and 300 years after its extinction, the role it played in the regeneration of a particular tree species (Calvaria major) finally came to light because large stands of the tree were starting to disappear, but there were no new trees to replace those dying out. It turns out the grinding action of the dodo’s gizzard was necessary for the tree’s seeds to successfully germinate – and no other

83 animal filled this niche. (However, there is controversy over whether the dodo bird was primarily – or even –marginally involved in the decline of Calvaria major; see Young, 2016.)

From these example, it should be understood that identifying a keystone species – and its inherent importance in making things function well – may not be possible until after the keystone species has been removed and negative changes are observed – and the effect of the keystone species may be even harder to observe while it is in the community.

This is the case for middle management in organizations, who Clarke (1998) termed an

‘endangered species’. A common theme among many books and articles written in an attempt to improve organizational structures and processes push for flat hierarchies and the elimination of middle management. For example, Floyd and Wooldridge (1996) noted organizations have attempted to become leaner and flatter. But these authors suggested this is a mistake and argued the organizations have significantly reduced the very thing that made them successful – middle managers. The authors further contend the future requires strong middle management and middle managers offer a pivotal perspective that places them at the forefront of organizational change and allows them “to play the role of champion, synthesizer, facilitator, and implementer.” This synergistic, multi-role description comes down to the many decisions that must be made by the middle managers, as per Carey (2009), in a review of the book entitled The Truth About Middle Management by Osterman (2009): “The critical decisions that middle managers make every day, directly affecting the day-to-day functions of a company. ...

When all of these decisions are added together, they equal a sum that is far greater than the individual parts.” Along these lines, Skrabec (2001) suggested middle managers are the ‘linking pin’ between senior management and the individual workers. Further, Serrat (2009) contended

“The role of managers is to help individuals and teams translate the organization’s vision into their own personal vision.”

But if middle management is so important, why is there a movement suggesting the extinction of middle management would be good for an organization? Carpenter and Wyman

(2008) put forward: “The middle has long been misunderstood, underappreciated and even discounted, and organizations are missing a terrific opportunity to gain a competitive advantage, retain a vital source of key talent and grow revenue by engaging this important segment.” The thinking of organizations falls in line with the mechanistic, reductionist thinking which has taken us to where we currently find ourselves – slashing and cutting in an effort towards more and more (apparent) efficiency. But this comes at the cost of effectiveness. It is the essential ‘middle leadership’ facilitation from the center that provides the emergence of higher order functioning. It is the mid-level facilitators that help induce the effective

'complexity' of the organization. All knowledge (from the top and from the bottom) flows through those in the middle. They are the collective consciousness of the organization and, as a result, they are the manifestation of the organizational collective wisdom. Thus, organizational complexity and complex adaptive behavior emerge in human organizations through facilitation at the middle level and - as such - middle leadership is a keystone species and is one of the keys to realizing resiliency in the organization.

Feedback Loops

A system makes adjustments based on inputs and outputs and creates a chain of changes – termed a feedback loop. Negative feedback loops are most common and tend to dampen or suppress changes (such as how your body regulates its temperature). At the ecosystem level,

85 negative feedback allows an approximate homeostasis associated with predator/prey population numbers (i.e., as prey population increases, so does the predator population and as the prey population falls, so does the predator population). Positive feedback loops lead to increased variance and lead the system further away from a nominal steady state – eventually to runaway events (think of the shriek from a microphone and amplified speaker experiencing feedback). An example from nature is an apple tree going virtually overnight from unripe apples to ripe apples due to the release of ethylene gas through the skin of each apple as it ripens, causing the apples around it to ripen (and give off the gas).

According to Vogt et al. (1997): “Positive and negative feedback systems are an integral part of ecosystems.” The authors go on to suggest that ignoring the feedback loops “results in the system becoming dramatically susceptible to other stresses that were not as significant prior to this change.” Ensuring there are numerous accurate feedback loops is important in implementing the ecosystem approach in organizations. Complex behavior emerging from an ecosystem is a result, in part, from feedback loops providing a constant flow of information regarding outcomes. Johnson (2009) discussed the role of feedback of information as the

‘magic’ piece in the complexity puzzle: “There must be some magic ingredient that a Complex

System has – but a pile of files or a big stack of socks does not have – and which therefore enables the Complex System in question to create order out of thin air all by itself.” Johnson goes on to credit ‘feedback of information’ as that magic ingredient.

The need for feedback is proposed by Sutter (2006): “People need feedback in order to learn, or at least become ‘conscious,’ because feedback provides a basis for monitoring conditions and assessing the consequences of different options and decisions against desired outcomes.”

Sutter goes on to note the importance of the contextual framework by which the feedback is received: “But context is also critical, since any type of feedback is likely to be interpreted and acted upon in different ways depending on the conceptual lens that are applied to it.”

However, it is important to understand feedback loops must not be controlled or filtered. An organization cannot try to control the message. It must be raw and immediate. And it must occur throughout the organizational systems and be used to modify interactions. Hartvigsen,

Kinzig, and Peterson (1998) discussed the complexity of ecosystems and noted: “Complexity arises from interspecific and intraspecific interactions of individuals or agents, interactions across trophic levels, and interactions of organisms with the abiotic environment over space and time. In addition, interactions can range from strong and direct to weak and diffuse and are modified by both positive and negative feedback with the environment.”

Indeed, what is incumbent upon us is to constantly seek both negative and positive feedback loops that signal the need to adapt and change, as espoused by Wheatley (2006) regarding stability in systems: “Feedback loops were monitored as a way of maintaining system stability.

Regulatory or negative feedback loops served this function well, signaling departures from the norm. As managers watched for sub-standard performance, they could make corrections and preserve the system at its current levels of activity. But there is a second type of feedback loop

– positive ones that amplify responses and phenomena. Theses loops use information differently, not to regulate, but to amplify into troublesome messages.” Quade (2007) further suggested: “The complexity science concept of positive and negative feedback does not carry judgments that we sometimes associate with personal feedback.” Quade quoted Lucas (2006) as seeing feedback as “a connection between the output of a system and its input, in other

87 words a causality loop – effect is fed back to cause.” Quade then quoted Campbell, Flynn, and

Hay (2003): “Negative feedback refers to any information fed back to the system which causes it to keep its output variety constant. Positive feedback is information which makes the output increase in variety.”

This is a very important concept about finding balance in feedback: With a high level of positive feedback, the system becomes unstable because of the amount of variability (though creativity will be very high); with a low level of negative feedback, there are so many constraints that nothing new is tried and things function only as directed, with no innovation. It is essential to try to obtain a balance of feedback so as to remain creative, but in a manner that does not lead to instability. In fact, the feedback loops contribute to keeping an organization moderated without too many wild swings from one extreme to another, as suggested by Cohen

(1993: “The parts of the organization are interdependent and changes in one part of the organization affect other parts. Each part of the organization uses information as feedback to monitor progress and to correct errors, and all parts strive to reach a balance or steady state.”

Ecological Time

To properly implement the ecosystem approach into our human organizations, it is necessary to consider and integrate concepts related to ecological time. An ecosystem develops in successive phases and the phases cannot be skipped. A seed pod lands in fertile soil, but conditions must be right before it is time to germinate and grow – for it to do otherwise means it will fail and die. Rifkin (1987) told us: “Nature has its own time orientation, a rich labyrinth of rhythms and tempos that unite the physical and biological worlds into a synchronized temporal weave.”

Constantly forcing our human construct of immediacy on most everything in an organization does not allow progress to occur in a healthy manner. Scientist Alfred Korzybski put it (as quoted in Rifkin, 1987): “Homo sapiens is the only ‘time-binding’ animal.” Rifkin then goes on to write about the high-speed culture of the twenty-first century and how some people are beginning to push back: “They would ask us to give up our preoccupation with accelerating time and begin the process of reintegrating ourselves back into the periodicities that make up the many physiological time worlds of the earth organism.” Similarly, Womack (2005) quoted Ivy

Ross: “If you want to get milk out of a cow, you have to give it time to graze. These days, no one has time to graze. No one has time to explore. It’s not just about giving people the best equipment and software to work with, it’s about feeding their soul, their mind, and creating an environment that each of them can grow in.” Barbara McClintock, the Nobel-prize winning geneticist, was the subject of a book entitled A Feeling for the Organism (Keller, 1984) in which

McClintock spoke of the need for scientists to “take the time and look” rather than focus only on continuously performing the next experiment or the next sequencing. She emphasized the importance of the reflective approach to science because “of the ‘hidden complexity’ that continues to lurk in the most straightforward-seeming systems. Or, as the writer John

Steinbeck once put forward (as quoted in Boldt, 2001): “It is a common experience that a problem difficult at night is resolved in the morning after the committee of sleep has worked on it.”

Ecological time was once also the human approach. Morris (1984) wrote about how, through much of human history, time was viewed not as linear, but rather as cyclical and how time used to not be thought about as something to be broken into such discreet parts: “Today

89 we think of time as an abstract quantity that can be broken down into hours, minutes, and seconds. But throughout most of history, time was not viewed in this way. Until the end of the medieval era, it was something that revealed itself in the rhythms of nature and of everyday life.” This is supported by Claxton (1999), who wrote: “The individuals and societies of the

West have rather lost touch with the value of contemplation. Only active thinking is regarded as productive. Sitting gazing absently at your office wall or out of the classroom window is not of value. ... There are a number of reasons why slow knowing has fallen into disuse. Partly it is due to our changing conception of, and attitude towards, time. In pre-seventeenth-century

Europe, a leisurely approach to thinking was much more common, and in other cultures it still is. ... Within the Western mindset, time becomes a commodity, and one inevitable consequence is the urge to ‘think faster’: to solve problems and make decisions quickly.”

Ecological time also includes a concept of waiting for the proper moment as suggested by the poet Ralph Waldo Emerson: “Adopt the pace of nature; her secret is patience.” A mother bird must patiently wait for her eggs to hatch; rushing the job would not turn out well. Deb

Hansen (2004), in a review of Jaworski’s book entitled Synchronicity: The Inner Path of

Leadership (2011) wrote about proper timing: “Situations unfold at an organic pace that is impossible to rush. All of our pushing and forcing serve mainly to exhaust us.” Claxton (1999) acknowledged there are some functions where hurrying can help a bit (such as rushing to make it to a meeting), but the author gave examples where rushing only makes things worse, such as speeding up the baking of meringues or tugging on a knotted fishing line. Claxton then went on to suggest: “The mind, too, works at different speeds. Some of its functions are performed at lightning speed; others take seconds, minutes, hours, days or even years to complete their

90 course.” The research of Amabile (2011) tied in with the need for long time frames and incubation periods: “Organizations routinely kill creativity with fake deadlines or impossibly tight ones. The former create distrust and the latter cause burnout. In either case, people feel overcontrolled and unfulfilled – which invariably damages motivation. Moreover, creativity often takes time. It can be slow going to explore new concepts, put together unique solutions, and wander through the maze. Managers who do not allow time for exploration or do not schedule incubation periods are unwittingly standing in the way of creative process.” This is further extended by Schwartz, Gomes, and McCarthy (2010): "We’re so busy trying to keep up that we stop noticing we’re in a Sisyphean race we can never win. All this furious activity exacts a series of silent costs: less capacity for focused attention, less time for any given task, less capacity to think reflectively (about the) long term.” Hohlbaum (2009) in a book entitled The

Power of Slow, identified the impact of rushing around: “What gets lost in this frenetic juggle?

Moments of intricate synchronicity. The unhurried conversations and interactions that are the life blood of human relations. A clear, vivid, sensual awareness of the earth’s glories.

Opportunities for the rich reflection that catalyzes all parts of our conscious and unconscious mind.”

The need for reflection and resting is critical and examples are replete throughout nature, such as suggested by Jones and Lawton (1995): “Nature cannot thrive in full flower all the time, and nor can we.” We think of the ant as being ‘industrious’ (and it is), but at any given time, an ant colony has about a quarter of its members resting in an area just below the main entrance, waiting to respond should the colony be attacked by enemies, or should a flood occur, or should someone step on the entrance and it needs to be quickly rebuilt. All the ants aren’t off

91 somewhere else, worn out from doing other things and always having to sprint at full speed.

There is a necessity for rest, contemplation, and rumination.

When do we come up with The Next Big Idea? When are we at our creative best? It is when we have time to reflect, which for many of us is limited to the few minutes we stand in the shower each morning. Lowry (2009) wrote about how we must constantly challenge our long- held assumptions, especially in those areas where we have much experience and a level of expertise: “When we begin to believe we understand something completely, that we have a grasp on it, then we may take much of what we know for granted and extrapolate from that knowledge, and consequently we can get in trouble. Sometimes it is good to reassess, to step back and take a fresh look.” But what could we accomplish, collectively, if we all took more time to reflect, to deeply think about what we are doing and why we are doing it; how we might do it better and how it fits in with everything else that is going on (i.e., taking a systems view with a long-term perspective)? However, we rarely slow down and find a natural rhythm and pace which are conducive to deep thinking. Bregman (2010) discussed devices such as the iPad which allow us to be constantly connected and – at least by appearance – super productive, but this comes at a price as Bregman contended: “But something – more than just sleep, though that’s critical, too – is lost in the busyness. Something too valuable to lose.

Boredom. Being bored is precious thing, a state of mind we should pursue. Once boredom sets in, our minds begin to wander, looking for something exciting, something interesting to land on.

And that’s where creativity arises.”

In a similar way, Eric Weiner (2007) suggested we should “goof off more at work” in the sense that while we are goofing off, we are reflecting and coming up with the novel ideas which

92 rarely come to us during the heat of the battle that comprises most work situations. Weiner went on to state: “Goofing off is not a waste of time – well, not always. Exhibit A: Albert

Einstein was a world-class loafer. In 1905, he was working as a clerk in a Swiss patent office, spending a lot of time spacing out. … It was at work, daydreaming one day, watching a builder on a nearby rooftop, that he experienced ‘the happiest thought of my life’ – a thought that soon blossomed into his ‘special theory of relativity’.” In an analogous manner, Claxton (1999) discussed the value gained by slow, leisurely thinking; the great value of waiting for answers to emerge; and the needed to embrace uncertainty: “To tap into the leisurely ways of knowing, one must dare to wait. Knowing emerges from, and is a response to, not-knowing. Learning – the process of coming to know – emerges from uncertainty.”

This uncertainty is often a nudging hunch that takes time to incubate. Johnson (2010a) described what he termed The Slow Hunch: “Most hunches that turn into important innovations unfold over much longer time frames. They start with a vague, hard-to-describe sense that there’s an interesting solution to a problem that hasn’t yet been proposed, and they linger in the shadows of the mind, sometimes for decades, assembling new connections and gaining strength. And then one day they are transformed into something more substantial: sometimes jolted out by some newly discovered trove of information, or by another hunch lingering in another mind, or by an internal association that finally completes the thought.”

Johnson goes on to suggest the “long incubation period is also their strength, because true insights require you to think something no one has thought before in quite the same way.”

To be able to take the time to think requires an atmosphere supporting such an activity, as noted by Johnson (2010a) who wrote about the need to create an environment conducive to

93 allowing your private thoughts to serendipitously connect, because – as Johnson pointed out –

“The truth is, your mind contains a near-infinite number of ideas and memories that at any moment are lurking outside your consciousness.” To wit, Johnson suggested: “One way is to go for a walk. The history of innovation is replete with stories of good ideas that occurred to people while they were out on a stroll.” This is discussed by Louv (2011): “When NPR commentator John Hockenberry reported the research that revealed greater mental acuity after a nature walk, he pointed out that Albert Einstein and the mathematician and philosopher

Kurt Gödel, ‘two of the most brilliant people who ever walked the face of the earth, used to famously, every single day, take walks in the woods on the Princeton campus’.” Similarly, Stott

(2013) wrote that Charles Darwin built a path on an acre and a half of rented land and strolled through it several times a day to clarify his thoughts. Even Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart found he was most creative “When I am ... traveling in a carriage, or walking after a good meal, or during the night when I cannot sleep; it is on such occasions that ideas flow best and most abundantly.”

In addition to taking walks and trying to find a more natural rhythm and not rushing around, there is great value in the sabbatical. In the book Take Back Your Time: Fighting Overwork and

Time Poverty in America, de Graaf (2003) noted: “some businesses have picked up on the idea of sabbaticals, though generally they are reserved only for upper levels of management. … If saints, mystics, scholars, and highly paid executives need substantial time away from their usual routines to do their work well, aren’t sabbaticals even more important for ordinary people?”

Although at first blush it may appear to be economically challenging to provide sabbaticals for deserving employees, upon considering the full systems view, it may actually be a very

94 economically wise thing to do. Considering the many months (sometimes more than a year) it often takes after a good employee quits to hire, train, inculcate, and get a replacement employee fully up to speed, the cost of providing extended leave to allow a good employee to rest, relax, recover, recharge, and renew begins to make economic sense. This is further supported by the fact organizational effectiveness is impacted significantly during the entire time it takes to get a new employee up to speed. And as discussed elsewhere in this paper, keeping good employees for the long term is the key to enhancing institutional knowledge.

It could be argued that the benefits package provided by many employers with time off for holidays and several weeks of vacation is the mechanism that would allow the employees to take a sabbatical if that is what they require. There is some truth to this in the sense that a few employees do scrimp and save their vacation time or negotiate time off without pay or come up with some other way to take a sabbatical. But is this what we should require of a good employee to get a chance to refresh and renew? Do we really want the employee to not use their entitled vacation intermittently and instead work incessantly to hoard it away to use all in one lump in the hope of recovering? Wouldn’t it be much better to reward a person after five years of employment with three months to go off to rest and recharge the batteries and maybe provide an incentive to make it to ten years to take off four months, etc. (or some such system)? This seems like a way to keep employees focused on a long-term approach, retain good employees, and enhance organizational resilience.

Successions and Phases

The integration of the ecosystem approach into human organizations requires an understanding there is no true stasis – everything is always changing. Enger and Smith (2010)

95 informed us: “Ecosystems are dynamic, changing units. On a daily basis, plants grow and die, animals feed on plants and one another, and decomposers recycle the chemical elements.” As such, it follows that human organizations are always in flux, so they also must always be adapting. But this adaptation must be within the framework underlying the successions and phases of nature’s ecosystems. Enger and Smith (2010) defined ‘succession’ as “the concept that communities proceed through a series of recognizable, predictable changes in structure over time.” It is important to understand succession is constantly proceeding in some manner throughout all aspects of any ecosystem – and there is no predetermined outcome of the successions.

Primary succession begins with the pioneer stage where there is a lack of organisms and bare mineral surfaces and eventually leads to a thin layer of soil where plants can begin to take root.

Roughgarden (1998) stated: “The main idea behind primary succession is that the pioneer species produces something in the environment, such as soil, that the climax species need.”

Roughgarden further contended: “pioneer species are actually necessary for successional sequence to proceed.” To our ecosystem approach to human organizations, primary succession could be considered the early concepts for an enterprise or a new idea for a product or service.

Terrestrial ecosystems move slowly from the pioneer stages to intermediate stages where there is a transition from lichens and small plants to perennial herbs and grasses to shrubs and shade intolerant trees; eventually, the succession proceeds to the climax community of shade- tolerant trees (based on Enger and Smith, 2010).

In our ecosystem approach to human organizations, the intermediate stage is the primary growth stage of an organization – a time of transition and opportunistic attempts to establish

96 how the organization will be structured and managed as it moves on to the climax stage. In the climax stage, the organization has, in a sense, put down deep roots and is well established.

However, as noted earlier, the climax stage should not be considered an end stage (and all the succession stages go on continuously at some level).

The following figure compares the factors in a natural ecosystem climax community and a resilient human organization. (Note: The top portion is based on Enger and Smith, 2010.)

Embracing Messiness; Uncertainty, and Ambiguity

Nature’s ecosystems can appear to our eyes as a scramble of bramble and briar without much obvious order in the apparent disorder (consider Charles Darwin’s entangled bank).

Indeed, as Nassauer (1995) pointed out: “the appearance of many indigenous ecosystems and

97 wildlife habitats violates cultural norms for the neat appearance of landscapes.” Think of the chaos of a logjam on a river, timber strewn here and there, blocking the flow. Yet, the Nature

Conservancy (2017) wrote: “We’ve taken note of the fascinating and crucial role that natural log jams play. By nature’s design, log jams create a tapestry of aquatic habitat where salmon can rest, spawn, and hide. Log jams also divert flowing water in floodplains, connecting habitats, forests, and streams.” The messiness of logjams, in a sense, is how nature works. This reasoning is supported by Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers (1999): “Life uses messes to get to well- ordered solutions. Life doesn’t seem to share our desires for efficiency or neatness. It uses redundancy, fuzziness, dense webs of relationships, and unending trials and errors to find what works.”

This corresponds with the discussion of complexity science and ecosystem studies which tell us there is order in the disorder [cf. Taleb, 2012 and Greenfield, 2016]. In fact, it is the apparent messiness – with the diversity and the interactions – which lead to higher-order functionality that is adaptable and resilient. Implementing the ecosystem approach into our human organizations requires us to embrace the messiness – and uncertainty, ambiguity, and paradox. Allen and Boulton (2011) argued: “embracing of uncertainty is the fundamental underpinning of complexity science” and Chia (2011) quoted Morin (2008): “The difficulty of complex thought is that it must face messes … interconnectedness among phenomena, fogginess, uncertainty, contradiction.” An editorial in Nature (2014) suggested the following:

“Ecology would be easy, were it not for all the ecosystems—vastly complex and variable as they are … Scientists like to impose structure and order on chaos, and ecologists are no different.

Ecology has its grand theories, but they are riddled with conditional clauses, caveats and

98 exceptions … It is doubtful that the generalities that underlie the complex patterns of nature will ever be phrased succinctly enough to fit on a T-shirt” (as quoted in Martin, 2015).

The embracing of complexity (and with it the inherent messiness) may be the most challenging aspect of implementing the ecosystem approach. We humans crave control though it often is a false illusion. As noted previously, Gilbert (2007) suggested: "Our desire to control is so powerful, and the feeling of being in control so rewarding, that people often act as though they can control the uncontrollable." Oliver Wendell Holmes observed something similar: “The longing for certainty is in every human mind. But certainty is generated by illusion.” Kelly

(1995) put forward: “It is impossible to take a complex problem and rationally unravel the mess into logical interacting pieces. Such well-intentioned efforts inevitably fail.”

Gino, Sharek, and Moore (2011) described the false illusion of control we get with the walk button on traffic lights: “Since the late 1980s, traffic signals in New York have been controlled by a computer system that determines when the walk signal is illuminated (per Luo, 2004).

Pushing the button has no effect. But because the city has not paid to remove the buttons, pedestrians continue to push the buttons.” In a similar manner, Brownell (2011) wrote about things that people think they have control over, but don’t. For example, nearly all elevator door buttons don’t do anything (unless you have the key used by emergency workers).

Brownell also described how the majority of office thermostats are dummy devices: “We hate to break it to you, but big companies aren't just going to let a chilly employee crank the heat up whenever he or she pleases. But if they simply locked the thermostat or put the controls out of reach, the employees would constantly complain. The solution: A thermostat that doesn't actually do anything but placate the chilly masses.” People think these items give them some

99 measure of control over their lives, but – as Brownell described – it is simply palliative: “The placebo effect is by no means limited to medicine. In our daily lives we constantly encounter situations where products or services don't work as promised. Yet far from stomping off to complain to someone, we instead come away convinced that the button we were pressing was doing exactly what it said it would. If a button says it will close the elevator doors but doesn't appear to have the desired effect, we still find a way to convince ourselves that it was doing what it said it would.”

Brownell (2011) went on to quote David McRaney (2011), author of You Are Not So Smart, a book about self-delusion: “Don't assume self-delusion is always willful or conscious. We often engage in something called confabulation, which is basically making up a story we can believe in to explain away behavior we don't understand. ... We are very good at pattern recognition, and whether or not we have the story correct as to what is causing the pattern, we naturally learn to associate cause and effect." Gino, Sharek, and Moore (2011) cited Langer (1975) and Langer and Roth (1975) as saying: “people are suffering from an illusion of control” when they “behave as if they have control in situations that are actually determined by chance (i.e., situations where they have no control).” They cited the work of Goffman (1967) and Thompson,

Armstrong, and Thomas (1998) by stating: “Many studies have shown that when cues related to skills, such as choice, competition, practice, or familiarity, are introduced into chance situations, people behave as if the chance outcome was determined by skill.” Gino, Sharek, and Moore go on to state: “Choice has been shown to induce an illusion of control” and reference Fleming and

Darley (1989): “People behave as if they think they have greater control when they roll dice themselves than when someone else rolls for them.” For further exposition, they cite Miller

100 and Ross (1975): “When people expect to produce a certain outcome and the outcome then occurs, they often overestimate the degree to which they were instrumental in making it happen.”

The upshot of all of this? We actually delude ourselves into thinking we are in control of our organizations. We are not. An organization is complex entity over which we can exercise the appearance of some control, but all our efforts are the equivalent of pushing “Walk” buttons and waiting for the Walk light – and imagining we made the light change. As McRaney (2011) described it, it is confabulation – we make up our own stories to convince ourselves we have control.

This is a significant problem because the illusion of control is the basis for how most everything operates in most organizations. For example, in a research and development laboratory, there is little to be done to exercise control over innovation and creativity, yet schedules are made (and updated) on the illusion that we can schedule a technical breakthrough.

This illusion comes at a cost. Gino, Sharek, and Moore (2011) suggested one of the consequences of believing you have more control than you really do: “When people overestimate their degree of control, they may engage in easy strategies to achieve a particular outcome and avoid the more difficult actions than may be needed. For instance, if a manager overestimates her control over the success of a merger or the launch of a new product, she may spend too little time questioning the project’s viability at the outset.”

An organization’s problems are complex and simple solutions do not exist. As noted by

Jacobs (1961): “We may wish for easier, all-purpose analyses, and for simpler, magical, all-

101 purpose cures, but wishing cannot change these problems into simpler matters than organized complexity, no matter how much we try to evade the realities and handle them as something different.” But with inborn uncertainty, we cannot hope to find a magic cure or, as suggested by Kiel (1994), a single, big-picture approach to controlling our organizations: “Management thinkers have struggled for many years to develop a grand theory of management. … The relatively undeveloped state of management theory building reflects the nonlinear world we live in. The world of instability, disorder, and change seems to stay at least one step ahead of our intellectual efforts to create a comprehensive management theory.”

One reason why there can be no effective ‘Grand Management Theory’ is because disorder is always one misplaced book away. Per Angier (2007): “But think of that library, and how easy it is to perturb that order. You don’t have to reduce the entire collection to a jumble on the floor; a single, mis-inserted volume is enough to ruin a scholar’s whole morning. In fact, there is only one way for the books to be arranged on the shelves in a flawless, Dewey-decimal sequence, but thousands upon hundreds of thousands of ways that they can be set astray. Herein lies the engine of entropy. Order, by definition, has restrictions and limitations, while disorder knows no bounds.” Despite this, managers put an enormous effort into trying to constantly keep every book in its place on the shelf, to overcome entropy at every turn. And we do this despite great evidence that the intermingling of diverse tomes, the outcomes of interdependent works, provide the genesis of the next breakthrough. When a book on behavioral biology rubs up next to one on particle physics and they both lean against a volume on economic theory, the stage is set for connecting patterns out of the intertwining of concepts and philosophies; indeed, chaos gives you the primordial ingredients for complexity soup.

102

In 1987, Tom Peters wrote a business best seller entitled Thriving on Chaos which called for a management revolution embracing flexibility in organizations. This need has been recognized, but is has been challenging to implement because we shy away from disorder. Despite this, other authors have picked up the flag and continued to wave it. Storr (c. 1996) contended an organization must function at the edge of chaos to survive: “It is only here that the organization is changeable because it is only here that it is capable of double loop learning. The edge of chaos is characterized by creative tension and paradox. Evidence shows that when organizations resolve the paradox, they eventually fail (see Miller, 1990), whereas those that sustain the paradox and operate in nonequilibrium states are more likely to survive (see

Pascale, 1990).”

This concept was discussed by E.F. Schumacher (1973), who argued: “We always have to face the simultaneous requirement for order and freedom. In any organization, large or small, there must be a certain clarity and orderliness; if things fall into disorder, nothing can be accomplished. Yet, orderliness, as such, is static and lifeless; so there must also be plenty of elbow room and scope for breaking through the established order, to do the thing never done before, never anticipated by the guardians of orderliness, the new unpredicted outcome of a man’s creative idea. Therefore any organization has to strive continuously for the orderliness of order and the disorderliness of creative.”

To embrace the messiness and uncertainty and to embrace the chaos, we need to recognize these concepts for what they really are. Consciousness is not even what we have thought it to be. Patrick Purdon (2015), with colleagues at Harvard Medical School, analyzed the brain’s electrical activity and realized a counterintuitive finding: Consciousness is not order and

103 synchrony, but rather it “is chaotic and noisy. It is all these different parts of the brain – facial recognition, touch, sound, language – engaged in this crazily multilayered conversation.” This fits with what John F. Welch, Jr., Chairman and CEO, General Electric Company told us: “If you’re not confused, you don’t know what’s going on.”

The key to working with the messiness and uncertainty is to embrace it. Sutton (2010) instructed us to “Strive for simplicity and competence, but embrace the confusion and messiness along the way.” We must remove the self-prescribed blinders we wear which make us imagine things go according to plan and that we are in control of the outcome. Yes, it is possible to put forth a lot of energy overcoming entropy and the natural order of things – and the results are sometimes approximate the outcomes we had planned. But torturing reality to conform to our perception of linearity takes far too much effort and is not really sustainable over the long term. There are no straight lines in nature, so trying to keep everything on the straight and narrow requires more kilowatts than we can carry around. And at a deep level, we know this. Despite our best efforts, many well-planned things fail – and many things that do not apparently fail in the near-term are not sustainable and fail long before intended.

We struggle to even predict the weather, much less other long-range outcomes. Because of the importance of knowing the weather, science has put an enormous effort forward in predicting all the aspects of weather on a local and global scale. But because weather is a complex system, our ability to predict it does not extend very far from our view of the horizon.

Sumner (2015) wrote: “Even using cutting-edge supercomputers and a global network of weather stations, meteorologists can provide a skilled forecast only three to 10 days into the

104 future. After that, the computer typically becomes a worse predictor than the historical average.”

Like the weather, ecosystems are constructed and operate from nonlinear behaviors. The

Convention on Biological Diversity (2017b) put forward: “Ecosystem processes and functions are complex and variable. … Long-term, inflexible decisions are likely to be inadequate or even destructive. Ecosystem management should be envisaged as a long-term experiment that builds on its results as it progresses. This ‘learning-by-doing’ will also serve as an important source of information to gain knowledge of how best to monitor the results of management and evaluate whether established goals are being attained.”

When we think about the balancing of order and creative freedom, we watch the workings of an ant or bee colony and note the apparent orderliness and effectiveness. But recall that no ant is told what to do or when to do it. No bee has written procedures to follow. There is order and effectiveness, but there is no bureaucracy. Each ant does what it thinks needs to be done and communicates that to those around them. The others are free to choose to do similarly or to do something else, based on their own local knowledge. And many are doing nothing but resting, ready to respond to an emergency at a moment’s notice. The bee acts similarly, telling others where it has found food and how to get there – but none are told what they have to do.

They are given the local knowledge, they know the colony’s mission and purpose, and their collective actions – based on their own decisions – lead to the emergence of higher-order functionality. And this functionality brings about order and effectiveness without curtailing the creative freedom of the individual.

105

In a similar manner, we can consider the wolf pack. At times, the pack must function as tightly knit team, seemingly choreographed in the way it goes about the hunt. But the choreography is also emergent from the individual behavior of each wolf doing what it believes needs to be done at each moment. No standard operating procedures are developed with a QA department hovering nearby to document every apparent discrepancy. Each wolf knows the strategic mission, the purpose, what is to be achieved. They then act individually to bring about a higher-level collective behavior, free-forming it as they go. Each hunt does not result in a kill, but when it doesn’t work out, they are left to lick their wounds, not to fill out discrepancy reports and affix blame. They re-group and go about their business with a certain order and a certain creative freedom.

The sweet spot is a place between chaos and control that realizes complexity; it is a place between linear thinking and organic thinking; it is a place between centralization and decentralization. It is an adaptive approach to everything, often proactive, sometimes reactive.

It is a systems, holistic approach that occasionally drills down into the details. It treats the individual as a unique entity with unique attributes, aptitudes, skills, and limitations and it allows each individual to contribute in its own way. It establishes a clear and concise strategic course and direction, but does not dictate the route to get there. It searches for interdependencies and facilitates the interfaces. It recognizes the power of the centroid – and the need to enable and engage with facilitation from the center rather than the top or bottom.

It embraces complex adaptive behavior and is patient to allow the emergence that comes from collaboration and gestation of ideas. It establishes the necessary bounding conditions with simple rules and measures to show progress and alignment. It is harmonics and resonant

106 frequency – seeking the node that makes everything hum along in its own unique way, in a manner akin to a jazz ensemble that feels an instinctive pulse and flows rhythmically together.

It is the acceptance of messiness and the embracing of ambiguity and the belief that natural processes will ultimately prove the most effective. And it is recognizing there is not enough ordering we can even perform to reverse the inherent entropy – per Fuller (2016): “There is no way to order chaos. It’s the fundamental theory at the beginning and end of everything; it’s the ultimate law of nature.”

Embracing complexity means embracing messiness. It represents a sea change in the way most organizations function and in the way we have been taught to manage. But in doing so, we need to constantly remind ourselves we are following the way nature functions. Let go of the effort it takes to try to control everything and follow the suggestion of former Harvard lecturer Robert Reich (as quoted in Schrage, 1989), who offered: “Coordination and communication replace command and control.”

Gilda Radner, the comedienne, shortly before her death from ovarian cancer, gave us words to guide us as we realize the path forward is forever muddled, but that such a path is actually for the best: “Some stories don’t have a clear beginning, middle, and end. Life is about not knowing, having to change, taking the moment and making the best of it, without knowing what is going to happen next. Delicious ambiguity.”

107

Outcomes from Implementing the Ecosystem Approach

Applying the principles of the ecosystem approach to the structures and processes of a human organization will ultimately lead to a ‘rewilding” of the organization. Such a rewilding will result in an organization which is constantly changing and adapting and, ultimately, is inherently resilient to the shifting environmental disruptions and disturbances.

Rewilding

In his book entitled The Idea of Wilderness, Max Oelschlaeger (1991) wrote about the relationship of humanity with nature from prehistoric times to the present. He explored the changing essence of that relationship and, of particular note, how certain perspectives went to the end of the spectrum where nature was not considered to have value until it was humanized. However, Oelschlaeger suggested there have always been some people who held in high importance the relationship between humans and nature. This interaction with – and ascribing to the principles of – nature is at the heart of rewilding.

Jørgensen (2014) told us the term ‘rewilding’ has had “a complex history and a host of meanings have been ascribed to it.” Jørgensen stated the specific scientific term ‘rewilding’ has its “beginnings as a reference to the Wildlands Project (now called Wildlands Network), which was founded in 1991 and aimed to create North American core wilderness areas without human activity that would be connected by corridors.” In a recent article, Noguės-Bravo et al.

(2016) wrote about the lack of a full definition for ‘rewilding’ from the ecological viewpoint:

“There is a worrying lack of consensus about what is rewilding is and what it isn’t, which jeopardizes a clearer account of rewilding’s aims, benefits, and potential consequences.” The authors document the evolving incarnations of the term ‘rewilding’ over the decades and

108 conclude: “Thus, the focus of rewilding today is on specific introductions or reintroductions as a way to restore ecosystem functioning through the facilitation of assumed natural processes that existed before the ecosystems were profoundly altered by human impacts.”

The takeaway from this is that organizations need to “restore ecosystem functioning through the facilitation of assumed natural processes” – or, if not ‘restore’, then perhaps ‘introduce’.

This is the intent of implementing the ecosystem approach to an organization – to rewild it so it integrates the structure and processes analogous to those in natural ecosystems.

We are cautioned, in any rewilding effort, to not try to recreate exactly what came before.

Jørgensen (2014) called for us to consider the approach suggested by J.B. MacKinnon (2013) that we should restore based on the potential of the future rather than a replica of the past,

‘We need only to remember, reconnect, and rewild: to remember what nature can be; reconnect to it something meaningful in our lives; and start to remake a wilder world.”

Similarly, Bekoff (2014) recognized: “Reintroducing wildlife – rebuilding the biodiversity of animal and plant life in an ecosystem – will never fully or exactly replicate what an environment was like before.” Monbiot (2013) cautioned us to not think of nature as static and unchanging:

“Rewilding recognizes that nature consists not just of a collection of species but also of their ever-shifting relationships with each other and with the physical environment. It understands that to keep an ecosystem in a state of arrested development, to preserve it as if it were a jar of pickles, is to protect something which bears little relationship to the natural world.”

The value of rewilding is expressed by Bekoff (2014), who contended rewilding efforts “make for much more diverse, healthy, and sustainable ecosystems that are as natural as they can be given our omnipresence.” This has significant meaning for us as we apply the ecosystem

109 approach to our human organizations. The rewilding of an organization has the potential to realize some of the same attributes realized by a rewilded ecosystem, namely a return to healthy functioning and more resiliency. But as we have discussed, this comes with a natural messiness which runs counter to our desire to maintain complete control, as per the caution put forth by Bekoff (2014): “To rewild ourselves means to accept a certain level of risk and uncertainty.”

Resilience

Resilience is what we are looking to foster in our organizations. It is the spontaneous outcome from following the precepts of rewilding the organization through implementing the ecosystem approach to management. The result is an organization which is highly-adaptive with a long-term focus that has a much greater ability to accommodate disruptive events, thus demonstrating the resilience necessary to maintain high functionality as the organization ventures far beyond the known horizon and deep into terra incognita.

Organizational resilience has become increasingly discussed in the business literature. There are numerous books and articles addressing resilience in our organizations [cf. Strycharczyk and

Elvin, 2014; Sheffi, 2005; Sheffi, 2015; Välikangas, 2010; Zolli and Healy, 2013; Aranda and

Hart, 2012; Adger, 2000; Clement and Rivera, 2016; Walker and Salt, 2012; Walker and Salt,

2006; Patterson, Goens, and Reed, 2009; Gotts, 2007; Berkes, Colding, and Folke, 2008; Folke et al., 2010; Boyd and Folke, 2012; Downes and Nunes, 2018; Dunphy, Griffiths, and Benn,

2007; Gunderson et al., 2004; and Reivich and Shatté, 2002].

In 2015, The New York Times Magazine had an article (Sehgal , 2015) about the increase in the use of the term ‘resilience’, briefly revisited the story of the phoenix and stated: “We have

110 an ancient attraction to stories of resilience, but recently, the word itself has achieved a more prosaic popularity.” The article goes on to note ‘resilience’ “has sprung into new life as a catchword in international development and Silicon Valley and among parenting pundits and

TED-heads”.

Another indication of the attention being paid to organizational resilience is a full-page advertisement in the January/February 2018 edition of the Harvard Business Review with a headline questioning “How resilient is your business?” The advertisement wording described how a company called ‘BSI’ (BSI, 2018) can help organizations build resilience and promoted their “Organizational Resilience Index which we’ve built around 16 elements of best practice.”

Organizational resilience is not a new topic of interest: Fifteen years earlier, the Harvard

Business Review had an article entitled The Quest for Resilience (Hamel and Välikangas, 2003).

But it is clear that in today’s world, the resilience is being pursued in a wide array of areas. In fact, at this point in time, there is significant movement towards building resilience in all things.

Webb (2016) devoted a chapter to personal resilience and stated: “We are surprisingly resilient in the long term … Even with the worst that life can throw at us, we have a remarkable capacity to adjust to new circumstances and get back to our former levels of happiness.” Nourse (2015) contended successful leadership requires resiliency. Resilience concepts have even been applied far beyond organizations and people to cities [cf. Hughes et al. 2005] and cities are hiring chief resilience officers for disaster prevention and response planning [cf. McCue, 2014[.

According to Lengnick (2015): “The concept of resilience has origins in diverse set of disciplines, including engineering, ecology, psychology, human health, and disaster management. … Resilience thinking is well-grounded in ecological theory and has a long history

111 of development in natural resource management.” Lengnick suggested resilience is a “dynamic quality of complex adaptive systems.” Wheatley (2006) supported this idea by stating: “(A) characteristic of self-organizing systems is their stability over time . . . To use the example of an ecosystem, any mature ecosystem experiences many challenges and fluctuations at the level of individuals and species. But the total system remains stable, capable of developing its own rhythm of growth.” Connor (1998) offered: “Resilience is the ability to absorb large amounts of disruptive change without a significant drop in quality and productivity standards. A highly resilient organization is one that: regains its equilibrium quickly after the disruption of change, accomplishes important tasks during periods of confusion, and makes sure its people are physically and emotionally healthy and that its systems remain operational despite high levels of stress.” Välikangas (2010) expanded the concept further: “Resilience will again come to mean the capacity to survive the long term – not only its hardships, but more importantly, also the temptations to act for short-term benefit.”

Chiras (1992) questioned and answered concepts about what we might learn from nature regarding resiliency: “Why is it that natural ecosystems persist for tens of thousands of years – perhaps longer, if undisturbed by humans – but human society seems to be on the path to self- destruction? In other words, why is it that nature sustains while humans destroy? …

Ecosystems persist because of natural mechanisms that restore damage from a variety of causes.” Similar concepts are espoused by others [cf. Gunderson, 2000]. These concepts form the basis behind applying the ecosystem approach to human organizations – and provide the foundation by which to apply the processes, structure, and other characteristics under

112 constantly changing and uncertain conditions, as explored by Weick and Sutcliffe (2007) regarding realizing resiliency in what they term ‘an Age of Uncertainty’.

But even the best of organizations find it difficult to survive and thrive – over the long term.

In 1994, Collins and Porras wrote a bestselling book entitled Built to Last: Successful Habits of

Visionary Companies about 18 companies that had been around a long time and outperformed their competitors. Yet just ten years later, Reingold and Underwood (2004) reviewed those same 18 companies and suggested none of them would make the list proposed by Collins and

Porras just a decade earlier. Even visionary companies seem to have lost their footing.

Why is increased resiliency so important? Walker and Salt (2006) argued: “We live in a complex world. Anyone with a stake in managing some aspect of the world will benefit from a richer understanding of resilience and its implications.” Another reason is that we cannot control our environment and change is constantly occurring – and sometimes that change comes as a major upset condition. Redman (2014) told us” “The history and archaeology of the past 10,000 years have shown countless examples of people, as individuals, small groups, and increasingly large organizational units, facing changing conditions, serious stresses, and unexpected shocks.” These constant changes, along with the unexpected shocks, deal a death blow to organizations with low resilience. The ability to constantly monitor and adjust is a necessary survival skill, as per Jennings and Haughton (2002): “Unless a company constantly reassesses every decision it makes and every direction it takes, it will eventually end up as road kill.”

Although it might sound like heresy to the Wall Street types, the true, focused intent of an organization should not be on short-term profits, but rather on resilience. Of course, to endure

113 over the long term, an organization must realize profits. However, in a sense, profits are a byproduct of doing things to survive and thrive – as opposed to doing things to maximize short- term gains. In our own lives, we know what we need to do to endure over the long term … we need to eat properly, exercise, avoid risky behaviors, etc. We cannot constantly do things for short-term gain, such as consume rich foods, without reducing how much we thrive and – eventually – reducing our ability to survive. However, Simonetta (2009) warned us about our short-term survival instincts: “Our first set of survival instincts is perfectly normal, natural, organic, and . . . disastrous. These are our short-term survival instincts. Like all creatures, we are programmed, genetically predisposed, ‘hardwired,’ to make it to tomorrow, i.e., to survive and reproduce. These short-term survival instincts generate behavior that is characterized by fear, greed, power, control, immediate gratification, self-centeredness, authoritarianism, denial of inequalities, and the like. This is a set of survival instincts that can and is destroying us.”

By contrast, the ecosystem approach to human organizations is not a short-term survival concept, but rather a long-term philosophy that leads to a resiliency that helps ensure the survival of the organization. With this concept in mind, we must be careful to not exercise what

Steven Prokesch called ‘ruthless management’ when it comes to working toward long-term survival (as quoted in Schaef and Fassel, 1988): “Many are adopting a new creed that puts corporate survival above all else. The result: A generation of ruthless management. The new order eschews loyalty to workers, products, corporate structures, business, factories, communities, even the nation. All such allegiances are viewed as expendable under the new rules. With survival at stake, only market leadership, strong profits and a high stock price can be allowed to matter.” Schaef and Fassel further noted that “Prokesch sees corporate leaders

114 going through a massive rethinking process, and their response to the imperative to change has been to become dishonest, more rigid, less creative, and less willing to take risks.” Such attributes, however, lie directly opposed to the manner of implementing the ecosystem approach to human organizations as delineated in this paper.

115

CHAPTER SEVEN

CASE STUDY: APPLICATION OF THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH

The ecosystem approach to management has been implemented, in various forms, to multiple engineering research project teams over the past twenty years at a U.S. federal research laboratory. Because of the need for creativity and innovation in the setup and conduct of the research activities, the character of an engineering research project team lends itself more readily to the novel structures and processes of the ecosystem approach than does a standard engineering design project team.

Engineering design does involve a certain level of creativity and innovation, but the need to consistently design to codes, standards, and other expectations (such as industry practice) presents a degree of linearity and routine that is not as immediately conducive to new management approaches that emphasize less control. This is not to suggest the ecosystem approach to management could not be successfully applied to an engineering design project team (or an engineering firm). In fact, it would probably work quite well after an adjustment period by the participants who would understand their new-found individual freedom – coupled with greater interaction – would allow the exploration of more (and subsequently better) design alternatives. However, equivalent rigor would still be required to meet all applicable requirements and design reviews would remain as demanding as before.

By contrast, an engineering research project team has a fundamentally different mission and that is to imagine and explore new options and solutions to problems beyond that typically encountered in day-to-day engineering design. This requires a climate of creativity, innovation, and idea generation based on first principles and the freedom to fail repeatedly before

116 achieving acceptable (or optimized) outcomes. Such a climate clearly correlates with the description in this paper of the ecosystem approach and the factors identified to implement that approach.

This case study discusses the application of the ecosystem approach to engineering research project teams in a generalized manner due to the sensitive characteristics of the research activities and outcomes as conducted at the particular U.S. federal research laboratory where the events took place. Some high-level details are included, but specifics are purposely minimized. The implementation was performed at the level of the project manager and the technical lead, not by senior management. As best as possible, the implementation was done in an open, organic, systems manner, but the implementation was not always smooth and the results varied. The implementation required constant fine tuning (and occasional gross tuning) to overcome the inertia to return to the more conventional means of project execution.

In the previous chapter, a dozen principles relating to ‘structure and processes’ were suggested for implementing the ecosystem approach to management. The manner of implementation of the dozen principles and their corresponding outcomes are discussed individually in this case study. It should be noted that some of the application aspects naturally overlap with one another as this is to be expected in the real world to make a seamless research project team.

Perhaps more than any of the other eleven factors, a clear sense of purpose was ingrained into each engineering research project team from the start of each project. The need and value of this approach is emphasized by the philosophy underlying the concurrent engineering model

[cf. Jo, Parsaei, and Sullivan, 1993 and Prasad, 1997]. According to Ma, Chen, and Thimm

117

(2008), concurrent engineering is a design management system which has advanced to become a systems approach focused on the optimization of the design cycles. At the heart of the concurrent engineering philosophy is the understanding that early decisions ultimately bound the possible outcomes. Further, it is relatively easy in the beginning to explore the universe of ideas with little cost or schedule impact, but the later changes occur in the process, the greater the impact on cost and schedule. Importantly, studies of the concurrent engineering model have shown the investment of time at the beginning of a project to get everyone up to speed on the mission and solicit input and discussion from all participants results in significantly reduced overall project durations and similarly reduced costs. In fact, the studies have shown that expending as much as 30 percent of the budget and time available on upfront alignment and discussion before launching into the formal design phase pays dividends over the course of the engineering project (Anderson, 2010). Also, the outcomes are generally considered to be better than those achieved through the more standard approaches to engineering design.

At the kickoff of an engineering research project at the federal research laboratory, the entire team was assembled and the project was outlined in detail. The mission of the project was expressed along with the known drivers behind the mission and the known complicating factors. Budget and schedule were introduced and roles and responsibilities were identified

(though these roles and responsibilities were fluid, as will be discussed later in this chapter).

From this initial introduction, much time was then spent on white boarding ideas and discussing possible solutions and potential methodology and all other aspects of the engineering research project. This frequently entailed a total of several days (in half-day increments) over the first couple of weeks – giving the participants (often including the client and other stakeholders)

118 time for deep discussion and dialogue plus time apart to separately think and explore ideas and do calculations and conceptual sketches and put together the disparate elements to which everyone had been exposed.

The primary outcome from this introductory stage was a clear sense of purpose in each individual with enough background knowledge to understand the requirements and constraints, the intent and possible solutions, plus a multitude of additional information that proved helpful as the project segued into its next phase. Importantly, everyone felt involved and empowered and had a solid starting point for executing their activities on the project.

This blended well with the second factor in implementing the ecosystem approach, empowering the individual. Having a strong sense of mission, a baseline of knowledge, an investment by the project in providing information and soliciting feedback, each individual launched into their activity with an enthusiasm rarely seen in other projects at the federal research laboratory. In a word, each individual felt as sense of ownership of his or her role – and with it the responsibility to perform well and not let down the other members of the project team or the stakeholders. The individuals also understood they had the freedom to perform their activities in whatever manner they deemed appropriate to meeting the defined purpose and goals (within some bounding constraints, including safety and operational requirements, etc.). In fact, they knew there was an expectation to be innovative in their approach and to offer ideas (yes, even – or especially – the seemingly irrational ideas because these are the seeds of creative solutions).

For the most part, individuals embraced their role and their freedom and flourished. They were generally more fulfilled than their colleagues at the federal research laboratory who were

119 not part of the same engineering research teams. And most of them felt that beyond a level of job satisfaction, they experienced growth and had more control of their career directions and progress. However, a few individuals struggled with the reduced level of structure (such as not being assigned specific tasks) and the quasi-messiness of the project processes did not readily align with some of their inherent personality types (which is not surprising, because certain personality types migrate towards engineering because of its typically linear approach and defined methodologies). Over time, a few of these dissenters adapted and proved to be very valuable team members, but a few others drifted back to more conventionally run projects.

These individuals would often express upon leaving they would like to try to work in this loose environment again sometime, but it was often apparent they were experiencing a cognitive dissonance between the lure of the freedom and the safety of conventionality.

On the engineering research project teams, there was a need for adaptability, the third factor in implementing the ecosystem approach. Adaptability was necessary from the individuals (as just described), the senior managers at the federal research laboratory, and the stakeholders.

The individuals had to adapt not only to a new paradigm of how they conducted their activities with the associated freedom and responsibility, but they also had to constantly adapt to frequent new ideas changing their course of action. In addition, the individuals had to adapt to changing roles on the project as titles and responsibilities were much more fluid than on conventional projects. There were few set roles on the projects and most roles were such that an individual would lead certain activities as aptitude, attitude, experience, and interest converged to make them the obvious leader, though mid-course corrections (by the project

120 manager) were sometimes necessary. This was especially true in the transitions where one leader wasn’t stepping aside to allow another to step in – or no one stepped up for the next stage.

Senior managers often struggled with adaptability and it was no different at the federal research laboratory. Senior managers often did not understand (or simply did not like) engineering research projects being structured and operated in an unconventional manner.

This proved to be one of the biggest challenges to successfully implementing the ecosystem approach. Given the positional authority of senior management (and their frequent lack of willingness to try something different), there were times when more formal structure and processes had to be introduced into the project team. However, in actuality, because the team members were so bought into the new way of doing things, the changes were often effectively only cosmetic and the project continued operating in the new paradigm.

As mentioned, even stakeholders (such as clients) had to adapt. Being meaningfully included in the early stages was new to most of them, though once they experienced it, they strongly embraced it because doing so enabled them to have a direct voice in the communication of the mission, core purpose, and other influencing factors. The stakeholders also had to adapt throughout the project because although there was a clear starting position and intended outcomes as a result of the initial stage, these often changed during (and following) the more formal design, testing, and other project execution stages. Overall, such adaptability was necessary and made for better, more complete outcomes (but the acceptance of change was not always easy).

121

By setting up the engineering research project in the manner described – and with near constant facilitation by the project manager and technical lead – the fourth factor in implementing the ecosystem approach of interconnectedness, interdependence, and communication naturally progressed. The emphasis by the project manager and technical lead was on ensuring unceasing interaction of people and ideas. Such interactions are the foundation for interconnectedness and interdependence. The individuals began to recognize on their own the resultant synergy from working closely with their colleagues in an environment of trust where everyone pushed and pulled toward accomplishing the intended outcomes – and challenged anything that needing to be questioned or changed or redefined.

Interdependence is one of those characteristics which is hard to define, but is evident when you experience it. The verbal interactions have a genuine quality transcending normal technical conversation. Each individual speaks and acts in manner that extends beyond the topic at hand and probes for how whatever is being discussed affects all the other aspects in the system.

Frequently there are moments when someone realizes a new finding or decision has ramifications beyond the current participants and an immediate outreach is made to inform the others that may be affected. This action became part of almost every interaction of project team members, but it was also a strong point of emphasis by the project manager and technical lead throughout the entire duration of each project.

Diversity is the fifth factor in implementing the ecosystem approach. It turned out that diversity was both hard to implement and equally hard to maintain. Project teams at the federal research laboratory are matrixed to the project from the various groups and divisions, but the selection of the project team members occurs via discussion and agreement between

122 the project manager and the individual without the involvement of a line manager or sector manager. This is helpful because project managers have the freedom to solicit individuals to work on a particular project and individuals have the latitude to choose what projects they work on. As such, the individuals typically end up on a project mostly through word-of-mouth networks and familiarity through previous project roles. Although this has its benefits for setting up a project team quickly with qualified staff, it has the downside of defaulting to the familiar people and it is limited by the network of the project manager. These factors work against the goal of diversity. Also, the more the individuals work together on project teams, the familiarity leads to people taking similar roles each time and less new ideas get rolled out for consideration.

It was found that the project manager and the technical lead had to make specific efforts to reach out widely each time into the several-thousand-employee pool at the federal research laboratory to identify new individuals to diversify projects. This had a benefit of being able to find individuals with specific education and experience for the new project which aligned with the project needs (e.g., someone with a material science background in polymers for a plastics rather than using the previous material scientist whose expertise was metals). However, recruiting new people onto a project when they are unfamiliar with the other project people and unfamiliar with the funding agency can be difficult (for myriad reasons). This put the onus on the project manager to explain why the individual is being recruited and also to convince the individual it is good for them to step out of their comfort zone on other projects and work on something new in a project environment with non-traditional structures and processes. This recruitment effort met with mixed results because many opted to stay where they had

123 established a niche to continue doing work where they were comfortable with the people they had come to know.

But true diversity is such an important component of making this approach work that much effort was made to recruit new individuals and bring them along in the new style. Often, though, the result was only one new member on a project team of perhaps five to ten people.

Even one new person to such a team is enough to change the dynamics, but more diversity may have proven to provide more creativity than what the project teams achieved.

One of the challenges with any team – and perhaps more so with teams of highly educated and highly motivated individuals – is the subject of the sixth factor in implementing the ecosystem approach: competition and cooperation. Creativity, new solutions, and the emergence of higher-order functioning are a result (in a large part) of friction – the competition of ideas within a framework of cooperation. Maintaining competition, dealing with unhealthy conflict, and encouraging cooperation are foundational success factors for any collective human endeavor. In the context of engineering research projects at a federal research laboratory, these factors proved to be one of the most vexing challenges. Perhaps this one can be assigned to human nature, but projects that seemed to be going along well would suddenly fall into turmoil with factions lining up on several sides of each issue. This didn’t happen often and the further a project progressed, there seemed to be less unhealthiness regarding competition and conflict and greater cooperation, but not always. Eventually, every project team came around and worked through the issues and completed their respective projects in a civil manner.

However, more so than any other factor, dealing with competition and cooperation proved unwieldy at times.

124

The seventh factor is the ecosystem approach is comprised of boundaries, corridors, and ecotones. Boundaries exist in many varieties: there are boundaries between individuals and between different project roles; boundaries at the federal research laboratory between research teams, functional groups, and overarching divisions; and there are boundaries between senior managers and the project managers and their teams. (There are more – virtually everywhere you look.)

Boundaries on a project team can come in the form of assigned roles (e.g., lead design engineer; lead researcher; principal investigator). All these roles carry with them defined and implied responsibilities and authorities and these often overlap among the participants. By having less formalized roles, the ecosystem approach reduced some of these barriers and this facilitated the fluid movement of individuals into and out of the roles as the project moved along. At times, this reduced some of the drama, but at other times it was a source of drama because most of the project participants were accustomed to clear, hierarchical lines of reporting. There proved to be a certain messiness in not having defined roles, but it was essential to achieving the benefits of freedom of movement with the project team.

This freedom came in part because there was a push to keep open the communication corridors between everyone on the project team (including interactions with the full complement of associated stakeholders). Although it was hard for the project manager to resist the urge to control and filter messages, ultimately this proved to be one of the most important aspects of the functioning of the team. Everyone knew they had a voice and had the freedom to exercise their right to contribute in any way they thought was appropriate. This

125 created a sense of transparency and trust and probably limited the number of issues that came about.

The freedom of movement led to an understanding that ecotones existed wherever they were found (or created). Sometimes entire ideas or plans or designs were torn down to be re- examined. These torn-down pieces were ecotones where passionate individuals explored new ideas and possible solutions and where collaboration reached a crescendo. Exploration in the ecotones was the most fun part of the projects and everyone wanted to participate. This proved to be fertile ground not only for the ideas on a specific project, but also for the seeds of new proposal concepts.

Identifying and maintaining the structures and processes of the project teams were the primary activities of the keystone species, the eighth factor in implementing the ecosystem approach. For the most part, the keystone species were the project manager and the technical lead. Both individuals had to maintain constant vigilance to keep the projects on track with the factors being discussed. This had a distinctly different flavor than the more conventional approach to project management, but it was indispensable in terms of the success of the project. It also proved to be difficult in terms of trying to replace the individuals in these keystones roles with other individuals. Because the ecosystem approach is new and has some aspects which are radically different than conventional project management, it proved hard to train others to fill the keystone roles. A primary reason for this is because many of the actions required to sense and respond to the messy environment are not skills that can be proceduralized (or even well described). It takes intuition and people skills and a lot of capabilities that can’t be learned from a book.

126

The projects that seemed to flow the best had a third keystone member – someone on the project team who took on a facilitation role and dealt with many issues and concerns before they ever reached the ears or eyes of the project manager or technical lead. This was never an assigned role. It couldn’t be; a person had to come about it on their own. This might have happened more if the project manager and technical lead had been less involved; finding the right amount of involvement was difficult to establish and seemed to change each day.

Feedback loops are the ninth factor in implementing the ecosystem approach. Feedback loops come in many forms, but are essential to iterating towards a successful project outcome.

The feedback from the stakeholders (especially the clients) at the start of each project and throughout the project is one of the ways in which implementing the ecosystem approach is different than the conventional approach. Basically, everything that was done, every test that was performed, every decision that was made was communicated immediately to the stakeholders and a timely response was requested (and expected). Doing so resulted in limiting surprises and keeping the projects on track. It also was a low-key mechanism for suggesting additional concepts and testing beyond the scope of the project and this proved to be an effective way of realizing additional funded scope and additional funded projects.

Understanding the need to adjust to the proper pace was an aspect of the tenth factor in implementing the ecosystem approach, ecological time. The projects found some activities can be pushed along at a faster pace, such as setting up for a test. But some activities had to occur at a pace dictated by how they progressed and pushing didn’t help. It actually hurt. New ideas take time to germinate and grow. Trying to rush through the creative processes never proved fruitful. It was the role of the project manager and technical lead to help everyone understand

127 that exploring ideas and identifying solutions did have a defined duration that could go on a critical path schedule. This phase took as long as necessary to realize the truly unique and elegant approaches and solutions. This made everyone uncomfortable every time on every project. Although such work can be enjoyable, there is something in our human nature (and perhaps the way we are brought up) that makes us impatient to move on to the testing and analysis and design. Everyone would express concern for how long this phase would take. But it also proved to be the hallmark of the ecosystem approach because it became evident that better ideas with better testing methodology and means of analysis came about because of the way in which this process was allowed to proceed at its own pace – and it always paid dividends. Every time on every project.

Succession and phases are the natural steps in the life of the projects and are the eleventh factor in implementing the ecosystem approach. One of the roles of the project manager was to help everyone understand that all the phases were required all the time; i.e., no matter how far the project moved along, there should be some effort in coming up with better ideas; reanalysis of the testing results may be necessary, etc. As ecosystems are always in various phases and primary and secondary succession is always occurring, a project should always stay fresh with considering all aspects all the time. Not everyone grasped this concept and this often led to confusion among the project team. This is an area requiring further development because it was sometimes perceived a project was moving backward.

The twelfth phase of the ecosystem approach, comprised of embracing messiness, uncertainty, and ambiguity, was very necessary for the success of the projects, but also very difficult for most everyone to adopt. Engineering research projects are typically rather linear

128 and those people accustom to working on them expect the linearity which comes with work breakdown structures and Gantt charts and formalized plans. Although these tools were not entirely tossed out the window (in fact, they were used to a certain extent), the occasional appearance of apparent chaos was a source of heartburn to the participants, senior managers, and the clients. Despite explanations prior to the project kickoff (and regularly during the project processes) regarding how this approach was messy, but had benefits that could not be obtained by conventional project management, it was inevitable that someone would voice grave concern over how the project seemed to be out of control. Explaining that being out of control at that phase of the project was important and necessary did not seem to placate the concerns. Even those who had been through this type of project before often seemed concerned. But each project, in time, eventually found its own rhythm and there seemed a transition point where concern over chaos shifted to excitement about the creative process and the ideas that began flowing. Trying to facilitate the messiness was never easy, but it was often enjoyable and proved to be one of the perquisites of leading such a project.

Overall, the experiences of implementing aspects of the ecosystem approach in an engineering research project team at the federal research laboratory proved satisfactory. The participants generally agreed the outcomes of the projects met or exceeded what they would have expected from the projects if they had been structured and managed in the conventional manner. The participants felt they gained from undertaking some many different roles and learned a lot from being involved in all aspects of the projects and doing so had advanced their careers. Senior management never really embraced the approach and constantly expressed concerns, but did acknowledge the projects did seem to work out each time (though the project

129 manager often received negative marks for what were stated to be ‘taking unreasonable risks’).

Several clients were very pleased after they had been involved in a project or two; however, a couple of clients preferred their projects be managed in the conventional way (saying the reason was because they could better track the processes and milestones).

There is a lot of room for improvement in how the ecosystem approach is implemented and utilized with engineering research project teams (and to other types and larger organizations).

Different project managers will implement the structures and processes in different ways and eventually there may be enough lessons learned for a practitioner’s guide to be compiled. It may also be realized that a hybrid approach might work the best, such as one where the early part of a project uses the ecosystem approach (coupled with the concurrent engineering philosophy) to realize the benefits derived in increased creativity and innovation and the latter portion of the project is structured and managed in the conventional manner to test and analyze the ideas generated at the outset.

130

CHAPTER EIGHT

SUMMARY

Humans have an intimate connection to nature and we are increasingly turning to the lessons nature offers to solve engineering problems and develop medicines, among many other inspirations. John Muir (1877), the naturalist, noted: “In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks.”

However, when it comes to how we structure and operate our organizations, we do not embrace the concepts put forward in the natural world. In fact, we believe we have the answers regarding how to control and manage nature, but those approaches have not proved sustainable over the long term. By contrast, ecologists have studied the structure and processes of ecosystems and have found them to be remarkably resilient to change and disturbance. Ecologists have used this information to develop what is termed the ‘ecosystem approach’ as a means of managing nature’s ecosystems in a way which is proving successful

(especially as compared to the linear, mechanistic, command-and-control approach tried during much of the previous two centuries). Further, the ecologists have been on the forefront of applying how ecosystems function to the emerging field of complexity science.

Like ecosystems, complex systems utilize diversity, interdependencies, and other factors to realize self-organization, higher-order functioning, and resilience (among other attributes).

These are attributes we would like to realize in our organizations and significant effort has been put into trying to apply complexity science to enhance human organizations, but that effort has waned as the efforts has so far proved challenging. At this time, we find ourselves in a place akin to that described by Thomas Barry (2015): “It’s all a question of story. We are in trouble

131 just now because we do not have a good story. We are in-between stories. The old story, the account of how we fit into it, is no longer effective. Yet we have not learned the new story.”

The new story may begin with the concept proposed in this paper. There is a recognized need to improve the way our organizations are structured and operate. Complexity science tugs at us as having a unique way to restructure and change the way we operate our organizations, but that has not worked out. Perhaps the elegant solution is to borrow the ecosystem approach from the ecologists and implement new structures and processes in our human organizations following nature’s lead.

To do so, we must ensure there is a clear sense of purpose; strive for constant adaptation; place a focus on enhancing the freedom of the individual to meet the defined purpose; create entangled interdependencies; ensure there is true diversity; facilitate a state of healthy competition and cooperation; ensure there are proper boundaries and communication corridors with ecotones where innovation takes place; guarantee the keystone species is protected and strengthened; recognize each organization is always in varied states of

(analogous) ecological succession and phases; and welcome the messiness which comes with uncertainty and nonlinearity of this approach.

Over time, it is expected that the result of implementing the ecosystem approach in a human organization is to experience of type of rewilding of the organization leading to higher functioning, greater adaptability, and increased resilience to changes and disturbances.

132

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abel, T. (1998). Complex adaptive systems, evolutionism, and ecology within anthropology: Interdisciplinary research for understanding cultural and ecological dynamics. Georgia Journal of Ecological Dynamics; Vol. 2.

Adger, W.N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related. Progress in Human Geography; Vol. 24; No. 3; pp. 347-364.

Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84, 98–110.

Allen, P. and J. Boulton. (2011). Complexity and Limits to Knowledge: The Importance of Uncertainty; Chapter 10 in Allen, P., S. Maguire, and B. McKelvey, editors. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Complexity and Management. SAGE Publications Ltd; USA.

Aldrich, H.E. (1999a). Organizations Evolving. Sage Publications; USA.

Aldrich, H.E. (1999b). Organizations and Environments. Prentice Hall; USA.

Amabile, T.M. (2011). How to Kill Creativity; chapter in Johnson (2011) The Innovator’s Cookbook: Essentials for Inventing What is Needed. Riverhead Books; USA.; pp. 38-63.

Anderson, D..M. (2010). Design for Manufacturability & Concurrent Engineering; How to Design for Low Cost, Design in High Quality, Design for Lean Manufacture, and Design Quickly for Fast Production. CIM Press; USA.

Anggraeni, E., E den Hartigh, and M. Zegveld. (2007). Business Ecosystem as a Perspective for Studying the Relations Between Firms and Their Business Networks. ECCON 2007.

Angier, N. (2007). The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science. Mariner Books; USA.

Annunzio, S. (2001). Evolutionary Leadership: Dynamic Ways to Make Your Corporate Culture Fast and Flexible. Fireside Press; USA.

Aranda, K. and A. Hart. (2012). Resilient moves: Tinkering with practice theory to generate new ways of thinking about resilience. Health; Vol. 19; No. 4; pp. 355-371.

Argyris, C. (1971). Resistance to Rational Management Systems in Decision Making in a Changing World. Auerbach Publishers; USA.

133

Arrow, K., B. Bolin, R. Costanza, P. Dasgupta, C. Folke, C.S. Holling, B.O. Jansson, S. Levin, K.G. Mäler, C. Perrings, and D. Pimental. (1995). Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Science; Vol. 268; pp.520-521.

Ascher, W. (2001). Coping with complexity and organizational interests in natural resource management. Ecosystems; Vol. 4; pp. 742-757.

Ausubel, K. and J.P. Harpignies, Eds. (2004). Nature’s Operating Instructions: The True Biotechnologies. Sierra Club Books; USA.

Aversa, J. (2010). Survey finds worker dissatisfaction. http://theworldlink.com/news/local/article_7de59dfd-4673-515b-8cd6-bbc9d98722b9.html. Retrieved August 18, 2011.

Axelrod, R. and M.D. Cohen. (2000). Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier. Free Press; USA.

Bak, P. (1996). How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality. Copernicus Press; USA.

Banerjee, S. (2012). Chaos and Complexity Theory for Management: Nonlinear Dynamics. IGI Global.

Barry, T. (2015). The Dream of the Earth. Counterpoint; USA.

Barwick, J.M. (2008). One Foot Out the Door: How to Combat the Psychological Recession That’s Alienating Employees and Hurting American Business. AMACON; USA.

Batabyal, A.A. (1998.) The concept of resilience: retrospect and prospect. Environment and Development Economics; Vol. 3; pp.235-239.

Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. Bantam Books; USA.

Begun, J.W. (1994). Chaos and complexity: Frontiers of organizational science. Journal of Management Inquiry; Vol. 3; No. 4; pp. 329-335

Beier, P. and R.F. Noss. (1998). Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conservation Biology; Vol. 12; No. 6; pp. 1241-1252; Dec 1998.

Bekoff, M. (2014). Rewilding Our Hearts: Building Pathways of Compassion and Coexistence. New World Library; USA.

Benner, M. J., and M.L. Tushman. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 2; pp. 238–256.

134

Bennet, A. and D. Bennet. (2004). Organizational Survival in the New World – The Intelligent Complex Adaptive System: A New Theory of the Firm. Elsevier; USA.

Bentley, P.J. (2001). Digital Biology: How Nature is Transforming Our Technology and Lives. Simon and Schuster; USA.

Benyus, J.M. (1997). Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. Harper Perennial; USA.

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke, Eds. (2008). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press; Great Britain.

Bernstein, E., J. Bunch, N. Canner, and M. Lee. (2016). Beyond the holacracy hype: The overwrought claims – and actual promises – of the next generation of self-managed teams. Harvard Business Review; July-August 2016.

Bevis, Ken. (2016). Leaving behind burned trees for bird habitat. Interview of Ken Bevis by Courtney Flatt on Northwest Public Radio; http://mwpr.org/post/leaving-behind-burned- trees-bird-habitat. August 1, 2016.

Bioinspiration and Biomimetics. (2009). Learning from Nature. IOP Electronic Journals; Vol. 4.

Boldt, L.G. (2001). How to Be, Do, or Have Anything: A Practical Guide to Creative Empowerment. Lightning Press; USA.

Bolman, L.G. and T.E. Deal. (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership; 3rd Ed. Jossey-Bass; USA.

Bormann, B.T.; Wagner, F.H.; Wood, G., Algeria, j.; Cunningham, P.G.; Brooks, M.H.; Friesema, P.; Berg, J.; Henshaw, J. (1999). Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management. Elsevier; The Netherlands.

Bosquet, F. and C. Le Page. (2004). Multi-agent simulations and ecosystem management: A review. Ecological Modeling; Vol. 176; pp. 313-332

Boyd, E. and C. Folke, Eds. (2012). Adapting Institutions: Governance, Complexity, and Social- Ecological Resilience. Cambridge University Press; Great Britain.

Braha, D., A.A. Minai, and Y. Bar-Yam, Eds. (2006). Complex Engineered Systems: Science Meets Technology. Springer; USA.

Brand, F. S., and K. Jax. (2007). Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: Resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecology and Society; Vol. 12; No. 1; p. 23.

135

Bregman, P. (2010). Why I returned my iPad. Harvard Business Review: Blog. http://blogs.hbr.org/bregman/2010/06/why-i-returned-my-ipad.html. June 16, 2010.

Bridges, W. (2000). The Character of Organizations: Using Personality Type in Organization Development. Davies-Black Publishing; USA.

Brinckerhoff, P.C. (2009). Mission-Based Management: Leading Your Not-For-Profit in the 21st Century, 3rd Ed. Wiley; USA.

Brock, W. A., K.G. Mäler, and C. Perrings. (2002). Resilience and sustainability: the economic analysis of nonlinear dynamic systems. Pages 261-289 in L. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling, Eds. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

BSI. (2018). Organizational resilience: Embedding excellence to enable organizations to pass the test of time. https://www.bsigroup.com/en-US/Our-services/Organizational-Resilience/.

Brownell, M. (2011). 5 things you think work, but actually don’t. MainStreet; October 9, 2011. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_113610.html; Retrieved February 28, 2012.

Burgelman, R.A. and A.S. Grove. (2007). Let chaos reign, then reign in chaos – repeatedly: Managing strategic dynamics for corporate longevity. Strategic Management Journal; Vol. 28; Iss. 10; pp. 965-979.

Burgelman, R.A., C.M. Christensen, and S.C. Wheelwright. 2004. Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation, 4th Ed. USA; McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Burkett, V.R., D.A. Wilcox; R. Stottlemyer, W. Barrowa, D. Fagre, J. Baron, J. Price, J.L. Nielsen, C.D. Allen, D.L. Peterson, G. Ruggerone, and T. Doyle. (2005). Nonlinear dynamics in ecosystem response to climatic change: Case studies and policy implications. Ecological Complexity; Vol. 2; pp. 357–394.

Burnes, B. (2005). Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal of Management Reviews; Vol. 7; Iss. 2; pp. 73-90; June 2005.

Burroughs, J. (1905). The writings of John Burroughs: Birds and poets with other papers. The Riverside; Vol. 3; p. 54.

Butler, K.F. and T.M. Koontz. (2005). Theory into practice: Implementing ecosystem management objectives in the USDA Forest Service. Environmental Management; Vol. 35; No. 2; pp. 138-150

Brynteson, R, (2006), Once Upon a Complex System: Using Stories to Understand Systems. Sparrow Media Group; USA.

136

Byers, J.E., K. Cuddington, C.G. Jones, T.S. Talley, A. Hastings, J.G. Lambrinos, J.A. Crooks, and W.G. Wilson. (2006). Using ecosystem engineers to restore ecological systems. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution; Vol. 21’ No. 9’ pp. 493-500.

Cairns, J. and J.R. Heckman. (1996). Restoration ecology: The state of an emerging field. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ.; Vol. 21; pp. 167–89.

Calkin, D.E. and M. Mentis. (2015). Opinion: The use of natural hazard modeling for decision making under uncertainty. Forest Ecosystems; Vol. 2; No. 11; April 23, 2015.

Camazine, S., J.L. Deneubourg, N.R. Franks, J. Sneyd, G. Theraulaz, and E. Bonabeau. (2003). Self-Organization in Biological Systems. Princeton University Press; USA.

Campbell, J., J.D. Flynn, and J. Hay. (2003). The group development process seen through the lens of complexity theory. International Scientific Journal of Methods and Models of Complexity; Vol. 6; No. 1; pp. 1-33.

Campbell, M. (2016). How beavers could help save the western U.S. from a dry future. New Scientist; Oct. 22, 2016.

Capra, F. and P.L. Luisi. (2014). The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge University Press; United Kingdom.

Carey, B. (2009). Are middle managers going the way of dinosaurs? in a review of The Truth of Middle Management by Osterman (2009). http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Middle- Managers-Matter/dp/1422179702; Retrieved October 3, 2010.

Carpenter, G. and O. Wyman. (2008). Managing the middle: Engaging an overlooked talent segment. Mercer, LLC; http://www.mercer.com/referencecontent.htm?idContent=1301005; March 2008.

Cardillo, M., G.M. Mace, K.E. Jones, J. Bielby, O.R.P. Bininda-Emonds, W. Sechrest, C.D.L. Orme, and A. Purvis. (2005). Multiple causes of high extinction risk in large mammal species. Science; Vol. 309, Iss. 5738, 19 August 2005.

Castro, J. (2011). Wasps wired to recognize each other's faces. Live Science, December 01, 2011.

CC Pace Systems. (2011). Agile project management. http://www.ccpace.com/Resources/documents/AgileProjectManagement.pdf. Retrieved March 8, 2011.

137

Chassin, D. (2013). Control of complex systems. Abstract from a presentation at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory on April 24, 2013.

Chia, R. (2011). Complex Thinking: Towards an Oblique Strategy for Dealing with the Complex; Chapter 11 in Allen, P., S. Maguire, and B. McKelvey, editors. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Complexity and Management. SAGE Publications Ltd; USA.

Chiras, D.D. (1992). Lessons from Nature: Learning to Live Sustainably on the Earth. Island Press; USA.

Clarke, M. (1998). Can specialists be middle managers?: Developing paradoxical thinking in middle managers. Journal of Management Development; Vol. 17; Iss. 3; pp. 191-206.

Claxton, G. (1999). Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind: How Intelligence Increases When You Think Less. Harper Perennial; USA.

Clegg, S.R., C. Hardy, T.B. Lawrence, and W.R. Nord, editors. (2013). The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies, 2nd Edition. SAGE Publications Ltd; USA.

Clements, F.E. (1928). Plant Succession and Indicators. Hafner Press; USA.

Clement, V. and J. Rivera. (2016). From adaptation to transformation: An extended research agenda for organizational resilience to adversity in the natural environment. Organization and Environment; July 2016

Cohen, A.R. (1993). The Portable MBA in Management. John Wiley and Sons; USA.

Cohen, M. (1999). Commentary on the ‘Organization Science’ special issue on complexity. Organization Science; Vol. 10; Iss. 3; pp. 373-376.

Collins, J. and J.I. Porras. (1994). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. HarperBusiness; USA.

Connor, D.R. (1998). Leading at the Edge of Chaos: How to Create the Nimble Organization. John Wiley and Sons; USA.

Convention on Biological Diversity. (2017a). Ecosystem Approach – Description. https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/description.shtml. Retrieved September 28, 2017.

Convention on Biological Diversity. (2017b). Ecosystem Approach – Operational Guidance. https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/operational.shtml. Retrieved September 28, 2017.

Costanza, R. and M.T. Mageau. (1999). What is a healthy ecosystem?. Aquatic Ecology; March 199; Vol. 33; No. 1; pp. 105-115.

138

Crespi, B.J. (2001). The evolution of social behavior in microorganisms. Trends in Evolutionary Ecology; Vol. 16; No. 4; pp. 178-183.

Csete, M.E. and J.C. Doyle. (2002). Reverse engineering of biological complexity. Science; Vol. 295; March 1, 2002.

Daily, G.C. (1997). Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press; USA. de Graaf, J. (2003). Take Back Your Time: Fighting Overwork and Time Poverty in America.. Berrett-Koehler Publishers; USA. de Sitter, L.U., J.F. den Hertog, and B. Dankbaar. (1997). From complex organizations with simple jobs to simple organizations with complex jobs. Human Relations; Vol. 50; No. 5. den Hartigh, E., M. Tol, and W. Visscher. (2006). The health measurement of a business ecosystem. Paper presented at ECCON 2006 Annual Meeting: Organisations as Chaordic Panarchies: October 20-21, 2006.

Denning, S. (2014). Making sense of Zappos and holacracy. Forbes; January 15, 2014.

Dent, E.B. (2003). The complexity science organizational development practitioner. Organizational Development Journal; Vol. 21; No. 2; pp. 82-86; Summer 2003.

Devall, B. and G. Sessions. (1985). Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered. Gibbs Smith; USA.

Dickinson, G. and K. Murphy. (1998). Ecosystems: A Functional Approach. Routledge; USA

Dombeck, M.P. (1996). Thinking like a mountain: BLM’s approach to ecosystem management. Ecological Applications; Vol. 6; No. 3; Aug 1996.

Dombeck, M.P. (2012). Ecosystem thinking comes to the public lands. https://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/history/sidebars/ecosystems/ecosystem_thinking.html. April 25, 2012. Retrieved November 29, 2016.

Dooley, K.J. (1997). A complex adaptive systems model of organization change. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences; Vol. 1; No. 1.

Downes, L. and P. Nunes. (2018). Finding your company’s second act: How to survive the success of a big-bang disruption. Harvard Business Review; January/February 2018.

Dudley, W., Ed. (2002). Biodiversity. Greenhaven Press; USA.

139

Dunphy, D., A. Griffiths, and S. Benn. (2007). Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability: A Guide for Leaders and Change Agents of the Future, 2nd Ed. Routledge; USA.

Dyer, L. and J. Ericksen. (2008). Complexity-based agile enterprises: Putting self-organizing emergence to work. CAHRS Working Paper Series – Cornell University; January 2008.

Dym, C.L. and P. Little. (2004). Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; USA.

Edson, M.D. (2009). Group development: A complex adaptive systems perspective. Saybrook University. http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings54th/article/view/1435/490. Retrieved October 10, 2010.

Ekekwe, N. (2010). The leadership lessons of ants. https://hbr.org/2010/10/business-lessons- from-the-ants. October 04, 2010

Elmqvist, T. et al. (2003). Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(9): 488–494.

Enger, E.D. and B.F. Smith. (2010). Environmental Science: A Study of Interrelationships, 12th Ed. McGraw-Hill; USA.

Emerson, R.W. (1836). Nature. Cambridge Press; USA.

Eoyang, G.H. and R.J. Holladay. (2013). Adaptive Action: Leveraging Uncertainty in Your Organization. Stanford University Press; USA.

Eoyang, G.H. (1997). Coping with Chaos: Seven Simple Tools. Lagumo; USA.

Esade, M.B. and B. McKelvey. (2010). Integrating modernist and postmodernist perspectives on organizations: A complexity science bridge. Academy of Management Review; Vol. 35; No. 3; pp. 415-433.

Falanruw, M.V.C. (1984). People pressure and management of limited resources on Yap in McNeeley and Miller; Eds. (1984) National Parks, Conservation and Development: the Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining People. Smithsonian Institution Press, USA.

Farber, P.L. (2000). Finding Order in Nature: The Naturalist Tradition from Linnaeus to E.O. Wilson. The Johns Hopkins University Press; USA.

Farber, S. (1995). Economic resilience and economic policy. Ecological Economics; Vol. 15; pp. 105-107.

140

Fisher, L. (2009). The Perfect Swarm: The Science of Complexity in Everyday Life. Basic Books; USA.

Fiksel, J. (2006). Sustainability and resilience: Toward a systems approach. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy Vol. 2; No. 2; pp. 14-21.

Fleming, J. and J.M. Darley. (1989). Perceiving choice and constraint: The effects of contextual and behavioral cues on attitude attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Vol. 56; pp. 27-40.

Floyd, S.W. and B. Wooldridge. (1996). The Strategic Middle Manager: How To Create and Sustain Competitive Advantage. Jossey-Bass; USA.

Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change; Vol. 16; pp. 253–267.

Folke, C., S.R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, and J. Rockstrom. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability, and transformability. Ecology and Society; Vol. 15; No. 4.

Folke, C., C.S. Holling, and C. Perrings. (1996). Biological diversity, ecosystems, and the human scale. Ecological Applications; Vol. 6; No. 4; pp. 1018-1024.

Fremier, A.K., M. Kiparsky, S. Gmur, J. Aycrigg, R.K. Craig, L.K. Svancara, D.D. Goble, B. Cosens, F.W. Davis, and J.M. Scott. (2015). A riparian conservation network for ecological resilience. Biological Conservation; November 2015; Vol. 191; pp. 29-37.

Fulmer, W.E. (2000). Shaping the Adaptive Organization: Landscapes, Learning, and Leadership in Volatile Times. American Management Association; USA.

Fradette, M. and S. Michaud. (1998). The Power of Corporate Kinetics: Create the Self- Adapting, Self-Renewing, Instant Action Enterprise. Simon and Schuster; United Kingdom.

Frosch, R.A. and N.E. Gallopoulos, N.E. (1989). Strategies for manufacturing. Scientific American, Vol. 261, pp. 144-152.

Fryer, P. (2011a). Surviving and thriving. www.trojanmice.com/index.htm. Retrieved March 19, 2011.

Fryer, P. (2011b). The thriving organization: The application of complexity theory to businesses. www.trojanmice.com/index.htm. Retrieved March 19, 2011.

Fuller, A. (2016). Leaving Before the Rains Come. Penguin Books; USA.

141

Gaudiano, P., B. Shargel, E. Bonabeau, B.T. Clough. (2003). Control of UAV swarms: What the bugs can teach us. Proceedings of the 2nd AIAA “Unmanned Unlimited” Systems. Technologies, and Operations – Aerospace, land, and Sea Conference and Workshop; San Diego, CA; Sept 2003.

Georgantzas, N.C. (c. 2000). Self-organization dynamics. Fordham University. http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2001/papers/Georgantzas_2.pdf. Retrieved June 12, 2010.

George, B. (2008). America’s best leaders. U.S. News and World Report. December 1 – December 8, 2008.

Gharajedaghi, J. (2011). Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity – A Platform for Designing Business Architecture, 3rd Ed. Morgan Kaufmann, Publisher.

Gilbert, D. (2007). Stumbling On Happiness. Vintage; USA.

Gilbreth, L.M. (1914). The Psychology of Management: The Function of the Mind in Determining, Teaching and Installing Methods of Least Waste. The MacMillan Company; USA.

Giller, P. S., H. Hillebrand, U. G. Berninger, M. O. Gessner, S. Hawkins, P. Inchausti, C. Inglis, H. Leslie,B. Malmqvist, M.T. Monaghan, P.J. Morin, and G. O’Mullan. (2004). Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning: emerging issues and their experimental test in aquatic environments. Oikos; Vol. 104: pp. 423-436.

Gino, F., Z. Sharek, D.A. Moore. (2011). Keeping the illusion of control under control: Ceilings, floors, and imperfect calibration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes; Vol. 114; pp. 104-114.

Glenn, S.S. and M.E. Malott. (2004). Complexity and selection: Implications for organizational change. Behavior and Social issues; Vol. 13; pp. 89-106.

Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a New Science. Viking Penguin; USA.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Anchor; USA.

Goldstein, J., J.K. Hazy, and B.B. Lichtenstein. (2010). Complexity and the Nexus of Leadership: Leveraging Nonlinear Science to Create Ecologies of Innovation. Palgrave MacMillan; USA.

Golley, F.B. (1993). A History of the Ecosystem Concept in Ecology: More Than the Sum of the Parts. Yale University Press; USA.

Goonay, Z. (2002). Metaphors in science. The Fountain Magazine; Iss. 40; October/November 2002.

142

Goss, S., S. Aron, J.L. Deneubourg, and J.M. Pasteels. (1989). Self-organized shortcuts in the argentine ant. Naturwissenschaften; Vol. 76; pp. 579- 581.

Gotts, N.M. (2007). Resilience, panarchy, and world-systems analysis. Ecology and Society; Vol. 12; No. 1; Art. 24.

Grandin, T. and C. Johnson. (2006). Animals in Translation: Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior. Harvest Books; USA.

Green, J. and R. Clough. (2016). GE considers scrapping the annual raise. Bloomberg News; June 6, 2016. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-06/ge-studies-scrapping- annual-raise-in-nod-to-shifting- priorities?cmpid=BBD060616_BIZ&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_camp aign=.

Greenfield, R. (2016). Chaos theories: Is it better to be messy or neat? Bloomberg Businessweek; Sept 26 – Oct 2, 2016.

Greenwald, H.P. (2008). Organizations: Management Without Control. Sage Publications; USA.

Greer, J.M. (2010). Thinking like an ecosystem. http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2010/08/thinking-like-ecosystem.html; Aug 11, 2010; Retrieved November 29, 2016.

Griffin, A.S., S.A. West, A. Buckling. (2004). Cooperation and competition in pathogenic bacteria. Nature; Vol. 430; p. 1024-1027.

Griss, R. (2012). A creation story for humanity in science; Vol. 337; Iss. 6098; p. 1041.

Gunderson, L.H. (2000). Ecological resilience – In theory and application. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.; Vol. 31; pp. 425-439.

Gunderson, L.H. and C.S. Holling, and S.S. Light, Eds. (1995). Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Columbia University Press; USA.

Gunderson, L.H. and C.S. Holling, Ed. (2001). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press; USA.

Gunderson, L.H., L. Pritchard, Jr., C.S. Holling, C. Folke, and G.D, Peterson. (2004). A Summary and Synthesis of Resilience in Large Systems; Chapter 10 in Gunderson, L.H. and L. Pritchard, Jr., Eds. (2004). Resilience and the behavior of large-scale systems. Island, Press; USA.

Gunaratana, B.H. (2002). Mindfulness in Plain English. Wisdom Publications; USA.

143

Haber, S. (1964). Efficiency and Uplift: Scientific Management in the Progressive Era, 1890– 1920. University of Chicago Press; USA.

Haeckel, S.H. (1999). Adaptive Enterprise: Creating and Leading Sense-and-Respond Organizations. Harvard Business School Press; USA.

Hagen, J. (1992). An Entangled Bank: The Origins of Ecosystem Ecology. Rutgers University Press; USA.

Haigh, N. and A.J. Hoffman. (2014). The new heretics: Hybrid organizations and the challenges they present to corporate sustainability. Organization and Environment; Vol. 27; No. 3; pp. 223-241.

Hamel, G. and L. Välikangas. (2003). The quest for resilience. Harvard Business Review; March 2003.

Hamilton, J. (2008). Think you’re multitasking? Think again. http://www/npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyID=95256794&sc=nl&cces-20081019; October 2, 2008.

Hannan, M.T. and J. Freeman. (1989). Organizational Ecology. Harvard University Press; USA.

Hansen, D. (2004). An engaging personal saga of leadership and the inner life: A review of Jaworski’s Synchronicity: The Inner Path of Leadership. http://www.amazon.com/Synchronicity-Inner-Path-Leadership- Business/dp/1609940172/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305591871&sr=1-1; Retrieved May 16, 2011.

Harman, J. (2014). The Shark’s Paintbrush: Biomimicry and How Nature is Inspiring Innovation. White Cloud Press; USA.

Harris, G. (2007). Seeking Sustainability in an Age of Complexity. Cambridge University Press; United Kingdom.

Hartvigsen, G., A. Kinzig, and G. Peterson. (1998). Use and analysis of complex adaptive systems in ecosystem science. Ecosystems; Vol. 1; No. 5.

Haupt, L.L. (2009). Crow Planet: Essential Wisdom from the Urban Wilderness. Little, Brown and Co.; USA

Heifetz, R., A. Grashow, and M. Linsky. (2009). The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World. Harvard Business Press; USA.

144

Heinrich, B. (1979). Bumblebee Economics. Harvard University; USA.

Hesselbein, F., M. Goldsmith, and R. Beckhard, Eds. (1997). The Organization of the Future. Jossey-Bass; USA.

Hock, D. (2000). The Chaordic Organization. Berrett-Koehler; USA.

Hock, D. (1999). Birth of the Chaordic Age. Berrett-Koehler Publishers; USA.

Hofmann, G E. & Gaines, S. D. (2008). New tools to meet new challenges: Emerging technologies for managing marine ecosystems for resilience. Bioscience; Vol. 58; No. 1; pp. 43-52.

Hohlbaum, C.L. (2009). The Power of Slow: 101 Ways to Save Time in Our 24/7 World. St. Martin’s Press; USA.

Holland, J.H. (1992). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence. Bradford Books; USA.

Holling, C.S. (1976). Resilience and Stability of Ecosystems in Jantsch and Waddington, Eds. (1976) Evolution and Consciousness: Human Systems in Transition. Addison-Wesley; USA.

Holling, C.S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics; Vol. 4; pp. 1-23.

Holling, C.S. (1992). Cross-scale morphology, geometry, and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecosystem Monographs; Vol. 62; Iss. 4; pp; 447-502; February 1992.

Holling, C.S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems Vol. 4; pp. 390-405.

Holman, P. (2010). Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval Into Opportunity. Berrett-Koehler; USA.

Horodecki, R., P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki. (2009). Quantum entanglement. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 – Published 17 June 2009.

Hoque, F. and D. Baer. (2014). Everything Connects: How to Transform and Lead in the Age of Creativity, Innovation, and Sustainability. McGraw-Hill; USA.

Houdet, J., C. Pavageau, M. Trommetter, and J. Weber. (2009). Accounting for changes in biodiversity and ecosystem services from a business perspective: Preliminary guidelines towards a biodiversity accountability framework. cahier de recherche 2009-44. 2009.

145

Hughes, T.P., D.R. Bellwood, C. Folke, R.S. Steneck, and J. Wilson. (2005). New paradigms for supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution; Vol. 20; No. 7; pp. 380-386.

Hurst, D.K. (2012). The New Ecology of Leadership: Business Mastery in a Chaotic World. Columbia Business School; USA.

Hutchins, G. (2014). The Illusion of Separation: Exploring the Cause of Our Current Crises. Floris Books; Poland.

Iansiti M. and R. Levien. (2004). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, pp. 68-78.

Ikerd, J.E. (1993). The need for a systems approach to sustainable agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment; Vol. 46; pp. 147-160.

Isenberg, D. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review.

Jagalgi, R., P.R. Todd, and R.F. Scherer. (2005). The dynamics of global e-commerce: An organizational ecology perspective. International Marketing Review; Vol. 22; pp. 42-45.

Jacobs, J. (2001). The Nature of Economies. Vintage Press; USA.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Vintage Press; USA.

Janssen, M.A. (2003). Complexity and Ecosystem Management: The Theory and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. Edward Elgar Publishing; USA.

Jantsch, E. (1980). The Self-Organizing Universe: Scientific and Human Implications of the Emerging Paradigm of Evolution. Pergamon Press; USA.

Jantsch, E. and C.H. Waddington, Eds. (1976). Evolution and Consciousness: Human Systems in Transition. Addison-Wesley; USA.

Jaworski, J. (2011). Synchronicity: The Inner Path of Leadership. Berrett-Koehler Publishers; USA.

Jennings, J. and L. Haughton. (2002). It’s Not the Big that Eat the Small … It’s the Fast that Eat the Slow: How to Use Speed as a Competitive Tool in Business. HarperCollins Books; USA.

Jianguo L., T. Dietz, S.R. Carpenter, M. Albert, C. Folke, E. Moran, A.N. Pell, P. Deadman, T. Kratz, J. Lubchenco, E. Ostrom, Z. Ouyang, W. Provencher, C.L. Redman, S.H. Schneider, W.W. Taylor. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science; Vol. 317; pp. 1513-16; Sept 2007.

146

Jo, H.H., H.R. Parsaei, and W.G. Sullivan. (1993). Principles of Concurrent Engineering. In: Parsaei H.R., Sullivan W.G., Eds.; Concurrent Engineering. Springer; USA.

Jones, C.G. and J.H. Lawton. (1995). Linking Species and Ecosystems. Chapman and Hall; USA.

Jones, C.G., J.H. Lawton, and M. Shachak. (1994). Organisms as ecosystem engineers. OIKOS Vol. 69: pp. 373-386; Copenhagen 199.

Johnson, N.F. (2009). Simply Complexity: A Clear Guide to Complexity Theory. OneWorld Publications; USA.

Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. Scribner; USA.

Johnson, S. (2010). Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation. Riverhead Books; USA.

Johnson, S. (2008). Hold Me Tight. Little, Brown and Company; USA.

Johnson, S., Ed.. (2011). The Innovator’s Cookbook: Essentials for Inventing What is Needed. Riverhead Books; USA.

Jørgensen, D. (2014). Rethinking rewilding. Geoforum, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.016,

Kahn, Jr., P.H., R.L. Severson, and J.H. Ruckert. (2009). The human relation with nature and technological nature. Current Directions in Psychological Science; Vol 18; No. 1.

Kanter, R.M. (2010). Powerlessness corrupts. Harvard Business Review; July-August 2010.

Kaplan, R.S. and D.P. Norton. (2006). Alignment: Using the Balanced Scorecard to Create Corporate Synergies. Harvard Business School Press; USA

Karau, G.G. (2012). Thinking Like an Ecosystem: Architecture, Agriculture, and Ecological Footprints. AV Akademikerverlag; Canada.

Keller, E.F. (1984). A Feeling for the Organism; The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock. Times Books (Anniversary edition); USA.

Kelly, K. (1995). Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World. Basic Books; USA.

Kendall, B. (2013). Fragility in nature. The forum on the British Broadcasting Corporation; June 9, 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0196ln8; Retrieved June 10, 2013.

147

Kiel, L.D. (1994). Managing Chaos and Complexity in Government: A New Paradigm for Managing Change, Innovation, and Organizational Renewal. Jossey-Bass Publishers; USA.

Kimmins, J.P., J.A. Blanco, B. Seely, C. Welham, and K. Scoullar. (2008). Complexity in modeling forest ecosystems: How much is enough? Forest Ecology and Management; Vol. 256; pp. 1646-1658.

Kohm, K.A. and J.F. Franklin. (1997). Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century. Island Press; USA.

Korhonen, J. (2001). Four ecosystem principles for an industrial ecosystem. Journal of Cleaner Production; Vol. 9, pp. 253–259.

Krause, J., G.D. Ruxton, and S. Krause. (2009). Swarm intelligence in animals and humans. Trends in Ecology and Evolution; Vol. 25; No. 1; pp. 28-34.

Krause, S., R. James, J.J. Faria, G.D. Ruxton, and J. Krause. (2011). Swarm intelligence in humans: Diversity can trump ability. Animal Behaviour; Vol. 81; p. 941-948.

Kühn, S., S. Düzel, P.Eibich, C. Krekel, H. Wüstemann, J. Kolbe, J. Martensson, J. Goebel, J. Gallinat, G.G. Wagner and U. Lindenberger. (2017). In search of features that constitute an “enriched environment” in humans: Associations between geographical properties and brain structure. Scientific Reports; Vol 7; Article number: 11920 (2017) doi:10.1038/s41598-017- 12046-7.

Laloux, L. (2015). The future of management Is teal. Organizations are moving forward along an evolutionary spectrum, toward self-management, wholeness, and a deeper sense of purpose. Strategy+Business; Autumn 2015. http://www.strategy- business.com/article/00344?gko=10921; Retrieved September 22, 2016.

Land, T., V. Hauck, and H. Baser. (2009). Capacity development: Between planned interventions and emergent processes – Implications for development cooperation. European Centre for Development Policy Management; Policy Management Brief 22; March 2009.

Langer, E.J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Vol. 32; No. 2; pp. 311-328.

Langer, E.J. and J. Roth. (1975). Heads I win, tails it’s chance: The illusion of control as a function of the sequence of outcomes in a purely chance task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Vol. 32; No. 6; pp. 951-955.

Lannoo, M.J. (2010). Leopold’s Shack and Rickett’s Lab: The Emergence of Environmentalism. University of California Press; USA.

148

Lappe, F.M. (2011). EcoMind: Changing the Way We Think, to Create the World We Want. Nation Books; USA.

Lappe, F.M. (2012). Think like an ecosystem, see solutions. The Solutions Journal; Vol. 3; Iss. 3; May 2012.

Lawler, E.E., S.A. Mohrman, and G. Benson. (2001). Organizing for High Performance: Employee Involvement, TQM, Reengineering, and Knowledge Management in the Fortune 1000. Jossey-Bass; USA.

Lawley, V., L. Parrott, M. Lewis, R. Sinclair, and B. Ostendorf. (2013). Self-organization and complex dynamics of regenerating vegetation in an arid ecosystem: 82 years of recovery after grazing. Journal of Arid Environments; Vol. 88; pp. 156-164.

Lawrence, E. (Ed.) (2005). Henderson’s Dictionary of Biology, 13th Ed. Pearson-Prentice Hall; Canada.

Lee, A. and T. Glad. (2011). Collaboration: The Courage to Step into a Meaningful Mess. Berkana Institute; March 2011.

Lee, H.H., M.N. Molla, C.R. Cantor, and J.J. Collins. (2010). Bacterial charity work leads to population-wide resistance. Nature; Vol. 467; p. 82-85.

Lehrhaupt, L.M. (2001). T’ai Chi as a Path of Wisdom. Shambhala Publications; USA.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable. Jossey-Bass; USA.

Lengnick, L. (2015). Resilient Agriculture: Cultivating Food Systems for a Changing Climate. New Society Publishers; Canada.

Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac with Essays on Conservation from Round River. Ballantine Books; Reprint edition (December 12, 1986).

Lerner, A.W. (1986). There is more than one way to be redundant: A comparison of alternatives for the design and use of redundancy in organizations. Administration and Society; Vol. 18, Iss. 3.

Levin, S.A. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems; Vol. 1; No. 5; pp. 431-436; September 1998.

Levin, S.A. & Lubchenco, J. (2008). Resilience, robustness, and marine ecosystem-based management. Bioscience; Vol. 58; No. 1; pp. 27-42.

149

Levin, S.A., S. Barrett, S. Aniyar, W. Baumol, C. Bliss, B. Bolin, P. Dasgupta, P. Ehrlich, C. Folke, I.M. Gren, C.S. Holling, A. Jansson, B.O. Jansson, K.G. Mäler, D. Martin, C. Perrings, and E. Sheshinski. (1998). Resilience in natural and socioeconomic systems. Environment and Development Economics; Vol. 3; pp. 221-235.

Liang, Z.S., T. Nguyen, H.R. Mattila, S.L. Rodriguez-Zas, T.D. Seeley, and G.E. Robinson. (2012). Molecular determinants of scouting behavior in honey bees. Science, 2012; 335 (6073): 1225 DOI 10.1126/science.1213962.

Lichtenstein, B.B., M. Uhl-Bien, R. Marion, et al. (2006). Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems. Published in Emergence: Complexity and Organization; Vol. 8; No. 4; pp. 2-12.

Light, S.S. (2009). Collaborative adaptive management: Separating the kernel from the chaff. 2009 International Annual Meetings of ASA-CSSA-SSSA; Pittsburgh, PA; November 2009.

Lin, B.B. (2011). Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: Adaptive management for environmental change. Bioscience; Vol. 61; No. 3; pp. 183-193; March 2011.

Loettgers, A. (2013). Communication: Metaphors advance scientific research. Nature; https://www.nature.com/articles/502303d.

Louv, R. (2011). The Nature Principle: Human Restoration and the End of Nature-Deficit Disorder. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill; USA.

Lowry, D. (2009). The Karate Way: Discovering the Spirit of Practice. Shambhala Publications; USA.

Lucas, C. (2006). Self-organizing systems (SOS) FAQ, Frequently Asked Questions Version 2.99. http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm.

Luo, M. (2004). For exercise in New York futility, push buttons. New York Times. As quoted in Gino, Sharek, and Moore (2011).

Lyons, S.K., K.L. Amatangelo, A.K. Behrensmeyer, A. Bercovici, J.L. Blois, M. Davis, W.A. DiMichele, A. Du, J.T. Eronen, J.T. Faith, G.R. Graves, N. Jud, C. Labandeira, C.V. Looy, B. McGill, J.H. Miller, D. Patterson, S. Pineda-Munoz, R. Potts, B. Riddle, R. Terry, A. Tóth, W. Ulrich, A. Villaseñor, S. Wing, H. Anderson, J. Anderson, D. Waller, and N.J. Gotelli (2016). Holocene shifts in the assembly of plant and animal communities implicate human impacts. Nature; Vol. 529; pp. 80-95; January 7, 2016.

Ma, Y., G. Chen, and G. Thimm. (2008). Paradigm shift: Unified and associative feature-based concurrent engineering and collaborative engineering. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing; December 2008; Vol. 19; Issue 6; pp 625–641.

150

MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson. (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press; USA.

MacKinnon, J.B. (2013). The Once and Future World: Nature As It Was, As It Is, As It Could Be. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, USA.

Magdoff, F. (2007). Ecological agriculture: Principles, practices, and constraints. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems; Vol. 22; No. 2; pp. 109-117.

Maguire, S. and B. McKelvey. (1999). Complexity and management: Moving from fad to firm foundations. Emergence: Vol. 1; No. 2; pp. 19-61.

Magurran, A.E.. (1988). Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Princeton University Press; USA.

Malik, F. (2011). Corporate Policy and Governance: How Organizations Self-Organize. Campus Verlag GmbH; Germany.

Manier, E. (1978). The Young Darwin and His Cultural Circle. D. Reidel Pub Co; USA.

Margalef, R. (1968). Perspectives in Ecological Theory. University of Chicago Press; USA

Mars, M., J. Bronstein, R. Lusch. (2012). The value of a metaphor: Organizations and ecosystems. Organizational Dynamics; Vol. 41; pp. 271-280.

Mars, M., J. Bronstein, R. Lusch. (2014). Organizations as ecosystems: Probing the value of a metaphor. January 01, 2014; Harvard Business Review Case Study; https://entrepreneurship.eller.arizona.edu/sites/entrepreneurship/files/attachments/PDFs/o rganizations_as_ecosystems.pdf.

Marsh, G.P. (1864). Man and Nature: Or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action. Scribner; USA.

Martell, D. (2007). Chapter 26 in Forest Fire Management in the Handbook of Operations and Research in Natural Resources; A. Weintraub, Ed.; 2007; Springer; USA.

Martin, L.J. (2015). Mathematizing nature’s messiness: Graphical representations of variation in ecology, 1930-present. Environmental Humanities; Vol. 7, 2015; pp. 59-88.

Marzluff, J. and T. Angell. (2012). Gifts of the Crow: How Perception, Emotion, and Thought Allow Smart Birds to Behave Like Humans. Atria Paperback; USA

151

Mathews, F. (2011). Towards a deeper philosophy of biomimicry. Organization and Environment; Vol. 24; No. 4; pp. 364-387.

McCarter, B.G. and B.E White. (2014). Leadership in Chaordic Organizations. CRC Press; USA.

McClelland, C.L. (1998). The Seasons of Change: Using Nature’s Wisdom to Grow Through Life’s Inevitable Ups and Downs. Conari Press; USA.

McCue, M. (2014). The rise of the Chief Resilience Officer. Fast Company; June 25, 2014.

McIndoe, B.W. (2005). jECHO: A New Implementation of Holland’s Complex Adaptive Systems Model with the Aim of Seeking Answers to Some Fundamental Open Questions. A dissertation submitted to the University of Liverpool in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science; February 2005.

McKelvey, B. (2004). Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing; Vol 19; pp. 313-341.

McKelvey, B. (2002). Emergent order in firms: Complexity science vs. the entanglement trap. Published in Complex Systems and Evolutionary Perspectives of Organizations: Applications of Complexity Theory to Organizations. Elsevier; Summer 2002.

McLaughlin, C. (2008). Thinking like an ecosystem: The inherent uncertainty of natural systems calls for the integration of resiliency and diversity in environmental management. Alternatives Journal; Vol. 34; No. 4; 2008.

McNeeley, J.A. and K.R. Miller; Eds. (1984). National Parks, Conservation and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining People. Smithsonian Institution Press, USA.

McPhee, J. (1989). The Control of Nature. The Noonday Press; USA.

McRaney, D. (2011). You Are Not So Smart: Why You Have Too Many Friends on Facebook, Why Your Memory is Mostly Fiction, and 46 Other Ways You’re Deluding Yourself. Gotham; USA.

Mencken, H.L. (1920). Prejudices: Second Series, Volume 2; Chapter 4 The Divine Afflatus. A.A. Knopf; USA.

Messier, C., K.J. Puettmann, and K.D. Coates, Eds. (2014). Managing Forests as Complex Adaptive Systems: Building Resilience to the Challenge of Global Change. Routledge; USA

Mills, S.L., M.E. Soule, and D.F. Doak. (1993). The keystone species concept in ecology and conservation. BioScience; Vol. 42; pp. 219-224.

152

Miller, D.T. and M. Ross. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin; Vol. 82; pp. 213-225.

Miller, D. (1990). The Icarus Paradox: How Excellent Organizations Can Bring About Their Own Downfall. HarperCollins; USA.

Miller, P. (2010). The Smart Swarm: How Understanding Flocks, Schools, and Colonies Can Make Us Better at Communicating, Decision Making, and Getting Things Done. Penguin; USA.

Miot, C. (2017). Two wolves survive in world’s longest running predator-prey study. ScienceMag; April 18, 2017. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/two-wolves-survive- world-s-longest-running-predator-prey-study.

Mira, J. and J.R. Alvarez, Ed. (2007). Nature inspired problem-solving methods in knowledge engineering. Proceedings from the Second International Work-Conference on the Interplay Between Natural and Artificial Computation; IWINAC 2007; La Manga del Mar Menor, Spain; June 2007. Springer.

Mitchell, S.D. (2009). Unsimple Truths: Science, Complexity; and Policy. The University of Chicago Press; USA.

Moore, J.F. (2006). Business ecosystems and the view from the firm. Antitrust Bulletin; Vol. 51; No. 1; Spring 2006.

Moore, J.F. (1993). Predators and prey: the new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review; Vol. 71; pp. 75-83.

Monbiot, G. (2013). Feral: Searching for Enchantment on the Frontiers of Rewilding. Penguin Books; USA.

Moral, R. and L.R. Walker. (2007). Environmental Disaster, Natural Recovery and Human Responses. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Morin, E. (2008). On Complexity, trans Robin Postel. Hampton Press; USA.

Morgan, J. (2014). The Future of Work: Attract New Talent, Build Better Leaders, and Create a Competitive Organization. Wiley; USA.

Morlon, H. (2012). Microbial cooperative warfare: Analysis of microbial interactions in the wild shows that microbes cooperate to resist competition. Science; Vol. 337; pp. 1184-1185; Sept 7, 2012.

Morris, R. (2009). How to mobilize people to tackle tough challenges and thrive (in a review of Heifetz, Linsky, and Grashow, 2009) The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for

153

Changing Your Organization and the World. http://www.amazon.com/Practice-Adaptive- Leadership-Changing-Organization/dp/1422105768/ref=pd_sim_b_4; Retrieved October 3, 2010.

Morris, R. (1984). Time’s Arrows: Scientific Attitudes Toward Time. Simon and Schuster; USA.

Muir, J. (1911). My First Summer in the Sierra. Houghton Mifflin; USA.

Muir, J. (1877). Mormon lilies. San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin; Part 4 of the 4 part series "Notes from Utah". Published 19 July 1877.

Nachira, F. (2002). Towards a network of digital business ecosystems fostering the local development. European Commission Discussion Paper, Bruxelles.

Nassauer, J.I. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal; Vol. 14; No. 2; Fall 1995; pp. 161-169.

Nature. (2014). Editorial (13 March 2014); pp. 139-140.

Nature Conservancy. (2017). Guided by nature: Strategies for adapting to climate change. Nature Conservancy Magazine; Summer 2017.

Nerburn, K., Ed. (1999). The Wisdom of Native Americans. MFJ Books; USA.

Neubauer, R.L. (2012). Evolution and the Emergent Self: The Rise of Complexity and Behavioral Versatility in Nature. Columbia University Press; USA.

Niven, J.E. (2012). How honeybees break a decision-making deadlock. Science; Vol. 335; January 6, 2012.

Noguės-Bravo, D., D. Simberloff, C. Rahbek, and N.J. Sanders. (2016). Rewilding is the new Pandora’s box in conservation. Current Biology; February 8, 2016; Vol. 26; pp. R87-R91.

Norberg, J. and G.S. Cumming. (2008). Complexity Theory for a Sustainable Future. Columbia University Press; USA.

Nourse, K. (2015). Get your bounce back: Successful leadership requires resiliency. The ASHA Leader; Vol. 20; No. 11; November 2015; pp. 30-34.

Nye, W.S. (2014). Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation. St. Martin’s Press: USA.

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty, 2nd Ed. Gower; United Kingdom.

154

Odum, E.P. (1953). Fundamentals of Ecology. W.B Saunders; USA.

Odum, H.T. (1983). Systems Ecology: An Introduction. Wiley; USA.

Oelschlaeger, M. (1991). The Idea of Wilderness. Yale University Press; USA.

Olsson, P., L.H. Gunderson, S.R. Carpenter, P. Ryan, L. Lebel, C. Folke, and C.S. Holling. (2006). Shooting the rapids: Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society; Vol. 11; No.1; pp. 18.

O’Malley, M. (2010). The Wisdom of Bees: What the Hive Can Teach Business About Leadership, Efficiency, and Growth. Penguin Group; USA.

Osterman, P. (2009). The Truth About Middle Managers: Who They Are, How They Work, Why They Matter. Harvard Business School Press; USA.

Ott, K. and R. Döring. (2004). Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit. Metropolis, Marburg, Germany.

Page, S.E. (2011). Diversity and Complexity. Princeton University Press; USA.

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). The implications of complexity for integrated resource management. Environmental Modeling and Software; Vol. 22; pp. 561-569.

Paine, R.T. (1966). Food web complexity and species diversity. Am. Natural. 100: 65-75.

Palumbi, S.R., McLeod, K. L., Grünbaum, D. (2008). Ecosystems in action: Lessons from marine ecology about recovery, resistance, and reversibility. Bioscience; Vol. 58; No. 1; pp. 33-42.

Pascale, R.T. (1990). Managing On the Edge of Chaos: How Successful Companies Use Conflict to Stay Ahead. Viking Penguin; England.

Pasternak, B.A. and A.J. Viscio. (1998). The Centerless Corporation: A New Model for Transforming Your Organization for Growth and Prosperity. Fireside; USA.

Patterson, J.L., G.A. Goens, and D.E. Reed. (2009). Resilient Leadership for Turbulent Times: A Guide to Thriving in the Face of Adversity. Rowman & Littlefield Education; USA.

Peltoniemi, M. (2006). Preliminary theoretical framework for the study of business ecosystems. Emergence: Complexity and Organization; Vol. 8; Iss. 1; pp. 10-19.

155

Peltoniemi, M. and E. Vuori. (c. 2005). Business Ecosystem as the New Approach to Complex Adaptive Business Environments. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228985086_Business_Ecosystem_as_the_New_A pproach_to_Complex_Adaptive_Business_Environments; Retrieved August 8, 2015.

Pennisi, E. (2015). Human impacts on ecosystems began thousands of years ago. Science; Vol. 350; Iss. 6267; p. 1452; December 18, 2015.

Perrings, C.A. (2006). Resilience and sustainable development. Environment and Development Economics; Vol. 11; pp. 417-427.

Perrings, C.A., K.G. Mäler, C. Folke, C.S. Holling, and B.O. Jansson, Eds. (1995). Biodiversity conservation, problems and policies. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Perrings, C.A., and D.I. Stern. (2000). Modelling loss of resilience in agroecosystems: Rangelands in Botswana. Environmental and Resource Economics 16:185-210.

Perrow, C. (1972). Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. Scott, Foresman and Company; USA.

Perry, E. (2012). Is an ecosystem-based approach the future of funding? http://artsfwd.org/is- an-ecosystem-based-approach-the-future-of-funding/. Retrieved November 29, 2016.

Peters, T. (1988). Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution. Harper Perennial; USA.

Pickett, S.T.A., M.L. Cadenasso, and J.M. Grove. (2004). Resilient cities: Meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape and Urban Planning; Vol. 69; pp. 369-384.

Pilinkiene, V. and P. Maciulus. (2014). Comparison of different ecosystem analogies: The main economic determinants and levels of impact. 19th International Scientific Conference; Economics and Management 2014, ICEM 2014, pp. 23-25; April 2014, Riga, Latvia.

Pimm, S.L. (1992). The Balance of Nature?: Ecological Issues in the Conservation of Species and Communities. University of Chicago Press; USA.

Pittalwala, I. (2015). How do ants identify different members of their society? In UCR Today; August 13, 2015 https://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/30857.

Porter, T.B. (2006). Coevolution as a research framework for organizations and the natural environment. Organization and Environment; Vol. 19; No. 4; pp. 479-504.

156

Prasad, B. (1997). Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals; Vol. II: Integrated Product Development. Prentice Hall; USA.

Purdon, P. (2015). Decoding the void. www.radiolab.org/story/anesthesia. Retrieved June 27, 2015.

Purser, R.E. and S. Cabana. (1998). The Self Managing Organization: How Leading Companies are Transforming the Work of Teams for Real Impact. The Free Press; USA.

Puth, L.M. and K.A. Wilson. (2001). Boundaries and corridors as a continuum of ecological flow control: Lessons from rivers and streams. Conservation Biology; Vol. 15; No. 1; pp. 21-30; Feb 2001.

Quade, K. (2007). The traditional meets the emergent: The modernization of T-Groups. http://www.hsdinstitute.org/books-resources/library/articels.html. Retrieved October 24, 2011.

Quick, T.L. (1992). Successful Team Building. American Management Association; USA.

Redman, C.L. (2014). Should sustainability and resilience be combined or remain distinct pursuits? Ecology and Society; Vol. 19; No. 2; Article 37.

Reece, J.B., L.A. Urry, M.L. Cain, S.A. Wasserman, P.V. Minorsky, and R.B. Jackson. (2011). Campbell Biology, Ninth Edition. Pearson; USA.

Reeves, M; S. Levin; and D. Ueda. (2016). The biology of corporate survival: Natural ecosystems hold surprising lessons for business. Harvard Business Review; January/February 2016.

Reganold, J.P., R.I. Papendick, and J.F. Parr. (1990). Sustainable agriculture. Scientific American; June 1990.

Reingold, J. and R. Underwood. (2004). Was “Built To Last” built to last? Fast Company; November 1, 2004.

Reinhardt, F.L. (2000). Down to Earth: Applying Business Principles to Environmental Management. Harvard Business Review Press; USA.

Reivich, K. and A. Shatté. (2002). The Resilience Factor: 7 Keys to Finding Your Inner Strength and Overcoming Life’s Hurdles. Broadway Books; USA.

Resnick, M. (1999). Turtles, Termites, and Traffic Jams: Explorations in Massively Parallel Microworlds. MIT Press; USA.

157

Richardson, K.A. (2008). Managing complex organizations: Complexity thinking and the science and art of management. E:CO; Vol. 10; No. 2; pp. 13-26.

Richardson, K.A., P. Cillers; and M. Lissack. (2000). Complexity science: A ‘grey’ science for the ‘stuff in between.’ Proceedings of the First International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management; pp. 532-537; Geelong, Australia.

Rickards, T. (2000). Trust-based leadership: Creativel lessons from intelligent horsemanship. creativity and innovation management; Vol. 9; Iss. 4; pp. 259-266.

Rifkin, J. (1987). Time Wars: The Primary Conflict in Human History. Simon and Schuster; USA.

Robertson, B.J. (2015). Holacracy: The New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World. Henry Holt and Company; USA.

Robinson, S. and M.M. Robinson. (2014). Holonomics: Business Where People and Planets Matter. Floris Books; Great Britain.

Robson, S.J. (1985). The use of metaphor in scientific writing. Iowa State University; Retrospective These and Dissertations. 48. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/48.

Rolston, H. III. (2003). Value in Nature and the Nature of Value. Chapter 11 in Light, A. and H. Rolston, III., Editors. (2003). Environmental Ethics: An Anthology. Blackwell Publishing, United Kingdom.

Rothschild, M. (1990). Bionomics: Economy as ecosystem. The Bionomics Institute. http://www.bionomics-institute.org/text/resource/outline/preface.html; Retrieved Aug 4, 2011.

Roughgarden, J. (1998). Primer of Ecological Theory. Prentice Hall; USA.

Sashkin, M. (1990). Touch Choices: The Managerial Decision-Making Assessment Inventory. Organization Design and Development, Inc. King of Prussia, PA.

Schaef, A.W. and D. Fassel. (1988). The Addictive Organization: Why We Overwork, Cover Up, Pick Up the Pieces, Please the Boss, and Perpetuate Sick Organizations. Harper and Row; USA.

Schaller, N. (1993). The concept of agricultural sustainability. Agriculture, ecosystems, and environment; Vol. 46; pp. 89-97.

Scharf, C.A. (2013). In defense of metaphors in science writing. Scientific American; July 9, 2013.

158

Scheffer, M, S. Carpenter, J.A. Foley, C. Folke, and B. Walker. (2001). Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature; Vol. 413; October 11, 2001; pp. 591-596.

Scheffer, M., R. Vergnon, E.H. van Nes, J.G.M. Cuppen, E.T.H M. Peeters, R. Leijs, and A.N. Nilsson. (2015). The evolution of functionally redundant species; Evidence from beetles. PLOS ONE, 2015; 10 (10): e0137974 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137974.

Schrage, M (1989). No More Teams! Mastering the Dynamics of Creative Collaboration. Doubleday; USA.

Schroeder, M. (1991). Fractals, Chaos, Power Laws: Minutes from an Infinite Paradise. W.H. Freeman and Company; USA.

Schumacher, E.F. (1973). Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; USA

Schwartz, T. (2010). The productivity paradox: How Sony Pictures gets more out of people by demanding less. Harvard Business Review; June 2010.

Schwartz, T., J. Gomes, and C. McCarthy. (2010). The Way We’re Working Isn’t Working: The Four Forgotten Needs that Energize Great Performance. The Free Press; USA.

ScienceDaily. (2012). Insects have personalities, too. March 8, 2012. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120308143201.htm; Retrieved March 13, 2012.

Sciere, J.B., R. Groenland, A. Vlug, and H Van Keulen. (2004). System thinking in agriculture: An overview. Chapter 4 in Emerging Challenges for Farming Systems: Lessons from Australian and Dutch Agriculture; Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation; Publication No. 03/053; May 2004.

Scott, W.R. (2004). Reflections on a half-century of organizational sociology. Annual Review of Sociology; ISSN 03600572; Vol. 30; pp. 1-21.

Seabrook, W. (2016). Using practical permaculture principles to help us tthink like an ecosystem. The Permaculture Institute; http://permaculturenews.org/2014/08/13/using- practical-permaculture-principles-help-us-think-like-ecosystem/; Retrieved Nov 29, 2016.

Seddon, J. (2005). Freedom from Command and Control: Rethinking Management for Lean Services. Productivity Press; USA.

Seeley, T.D. (2010). Honeybee Democracy. Princeton University Press; USA.

159

Seeley, T.D. (1996). The Wisdom of the Hive: The Social Physiology of Honey Bee Colonies. Harvard University Press; USA.

Seeley, T.D., P.K. Visser, T. Schlegal, P.M. Hogan, N.R. Franks, and J.A.R. Marshall. (2012). Stop signals provide cross inhibition in collective decision-making by honeybee swarms. Science; Vol. 335; pp. 108-111; January 6, 2012.

Sehgal, P. (2015). The profound emptiness of ‘Resilience’. The New York Times Magazine; December 1, 2015.

Seijts, G.H. and D. Crim. (2006). What engages employees the most or The ten C’s of employee engagement. Ivey Business Journal Online; Richard Ivey School of Business; London, Ontario, Canada.

Selhub, E. and A. Logan. (2014). Your Brain On Nature: The Science of Nature’s Influence on Your Health; Happiness; and Vitality. Collins; USA.

Selhub, E. and A. Logan. (2016). Nature really does make us happy: Scientific research provides powerful evidence that time spent in nature invigorates our brains and bodies. Mother Earth News; December 2015/January 2016.

Senge, P.M. (2006) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (Revised Edition). Broadway Business; USA.

Senge, P.M., A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R.B. Ross, and B.J. Smith (Eds). (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. Doubleday; USA.

Serrat, O. (2009). Building trust in the workplace. Knowledge Solutions; Asian Development Bank; August 2009.

Shafritz, J.M., J.S. Ott, and Y.S. Jang. (2005). Classics of Organization Theory, 6th ed. Wadsworth; USA.

Shaw, P. (2002). Changing Conversations in Organizations: A Complexity Approach to Change. Routledge; USA.

Sheffi, Y. (2005). The Resilient Enterprise: Overcoming Vulnerability for Competitive Advantage. The MIT Press; USA.

Sheffi, Y. (2015). The Power of Resilience: How the Best Companies Manage the Unexpected. The MIT Press; USA.

Shepard, M. (2013). Restoration Agriculture: Real World Permaculture for Farmers. Acres; USA.

160

Shireman, W.K. and T. Kiuchi. (2001). What We Learned in the Rainforest: Business Lessons from Nature. Barrett-Koehler; USA.

Simons, R. (2000). Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy. Prentice Hall; USA

Simonetta, J.R. (2009). Seven words that can change the world - The meaning of Earth Day: Beyond short term survival. Posted April 18th, 2009. http://www.sevenwords.org/meaning- of-earth-day/. Retrieved August 30, 2011.

Sitarz, D. (2008). Greening Your Business: The Hands-On Guide to Creating a Successful and Sustainable Business. Nova Publishing Co; USA.

Skrabec, Q.R. (2003). In Search of the Lost Grail of Middle Management: The Renaissance of Middle Managers. University Press of America: USA.

Smith, A.C.T. (2005). Complexity theory for organisational futures studies. Foresight: The Journal of Futures Studies, Strategic Thinking, and Policy; Vol. 7; pp. 22-30.

Smith, A.C.T. and C.E. Humphries. (2004). Complexity theory as a practical management tool: A critical evaluation. Organization Management Journal; Vol. 1; No. 2; pp. 91-106.

Smith, J.G. and J.B. Lindsay. (2014). Beyond Inclusion: Worklife Interconnectedness, Energy, and Resilience in Organizations. Palgrave MacMillan; USA.

Smith, W.K. and M.W. Lewis. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review; Vol. 36; Issue 2; Apr 2011.

Sole, R.V. (2005). Self-Organization in Complex Ecosystems. Princeton University Press; USA.

Soule, M.E. and M.E. Gilpin. (1991). The Theory of Wildlife Corridor Capability. Pages 3-8 in Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors edited by Dennis A. Saunders and Richard J. Hobbs; Surrey Beary & Sons.

Stacey, R.D. (1996). Complexity and Creativity in Organizations. Berrett-Koehler Publishers; USA.

Stacey, R.D., D. Griffin, and P. Shaw. (2000). Complexity and Management: Fad or Radical Challenge to Systems Thinking? Routledge; USA.

Stanford University. (2012.) Resilience. http://web.stanford.edu/group/microdocs/resilience.html. Retrieved July 22, 2016.

161

Stankey, G.H, R.N. Clark, and B.T. Bormann. (2005). Adaptive management of natural resources: Theory, concepts, and management institutions. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-654. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. p. 73.

Steele, F. (1975). The Open Organization: The Impact of Secrecy and Disclosure on People and Organizations. Addison-Wesley; USA.

Storr, F. (c. 1996). That’s another fine mess you’ve got us into: The value of chaos in organizational analysis. www.trojanmice.com/index.htm. Retrieved March 20, 2011.

Stott, R. (2013). Darwin in the house. Smithsonian Magazine; Vol. 43; No. 10; February 2013.

Strycharczyk, D. and C. Elvin. (2014). Developing Resilient Organizations: How to Create and Adaptive, High-Performance and Engaged Organization. Kogan Page; USA.

Suh, S. (2004). Material and Energy Flows in Industry and Ecosystem Networks. Leiden University; The Netherlands.

Sullivan, T. (2011). Embracing complexity: You can’t avoid it, but your business can profit from it. Harvard Business Review; September 2011.

Sumner, T. (2015). The future of forecasting: Technology promises faster weather predictions on a smaller scale. Science News; Vol. 187; No. 9; pp. 20-23; May 2, 2015.

Surowiecki, J. (2004a). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations. Doubleday; USA.

Surowiecki, J. (2004b). Team players. The New Yorker; May 10, 2004

Sutter, G.C. (2006). Thinking like a system: Are museums up to the challenge? Museums and Social Issues; Vol. 1; No. 2; Fall 2006; pp. 203-218.

Sutton, R.I. (2010). 17 things I believe. http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/12/12-things-good-bosses-believe-is-the- most-popular-post-at-hbr-in-2010.html.

Taleb, N.N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that Gain from Disorder. Random House; USA

Tansley, A.G. (1935). The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms. Oxford University, England.

Tautz, J. (2008). The Buzz about Bees: Biology of a Superorganism. Springer; Germany.

162

Taylor, J.C. (2001). Hidden Unity in Nature’s Laws. Cambridge University Press; USA.

Tazzi, F. and C. De Rossi. (2014). Biomimicry in organizations: Drawing inspiration from nature to find new efficient, effective and sustainable ways of managing business. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 1 edition (December 19, 2014); USA.

Temple, S.A. (1977). Plant-animal mutualism: Coevolution with dodo leads to near extinction of plant. Science; New Series; Vol. 197, No. 4306 (Aug. 26, 1977), pp. 885-886.

Thenatureofbusiness.org. (2015). Steps towards a deeper ecology of business. May 7, 2015.

Thietart, R.A. and B. Forgues. (2011). Complexity Science and Organization; Chapter 2 in Allen, P., S. Maguire, and B. McKelvey, editors. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Complexity and Management. SAGE Publications Ltd; USA.

Thomas, V.G. and P.G. Kevan. (1993). Basic principles of agroecology and sustainable agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics.

Thompson, K. (2008). Bioteams: High Performance Teams Based on Nature’s Most Successful Designs. Meghan-Kiffer Press; USA.

Thompson, S.C., W. Armstrong, and C. Thomas. (1998). Illusions of control, underestimations, and accuracy: A control heuristic explanation. Psychological Bulletin; Vol. 123; No. 2; pp. 143- 161.

Tilman, D., K.G. Cassman, P.A. Matson, R. Naylor, and S. Polasky. (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature; Vol. 418; pp. 671-677; Aug 8, 2002.

Tippett, J. (2004). “Think like an ecosystem” – Embedding a living system paradigm Into participatory planning. Systemic Practice and Action Research; Vol. 17; No. 6; December 2004.

Towery, T.L. (1997). The Wisdom of Wolves – Principles for Creating Personal Success and Professional Triumphs. Sourcebooks; USA.

Townsend, M. (c. 2001). Lessons from the field: Applying complex adaptive systems theory to organization change. OD Practitioner; 34 (3), pp. 10–14.

Tsoukas, H. and M.J. Hatch. (2001). Complex thinking, complex practice: The case for a narrative approach to organizational complexity. Human Relations; Vol. 54; No. 8; pp. 979- 1013.

Tushman, M. and C. O’Reilly. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38/4 (Summer 1996) pp. 925-938 as

163

reprinted in Burgelman, R.A., C.M. Christensen, and S.C. Wheelwright. 2004. Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation, 4th Ed. USA; McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Uhl-Bien, M., R. Marion, and B. McKelvey. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the Industrial Age to the Knowledge Era. The Leadership Quarterly; Vol 18; No. 4; pp. 298-318.

UN. (n.d.). http://www.un.org/depts/los/ecosystem_approaches/ecosystem_approaches.htm.

Urry, J. (2005). The complexity turn. Theory, Culture, and Society; Vol. 22; No. 5; pp. 1-14

Välikangas, L. (2010). The Resilient Organization: How Adaptive Cultures Thrive Even When Strategy Fails. McGraw-Hill; USA.

Varzi, A.C. (2011) Boundaries, Conventions, and Realism; Chapter 7 in Campbell, J.K., M. O’Rourke, and M.H. Slater; Eds. (2011). Carving Nature at Its Joints: Natural Kinds in Metaphysics and Science. MIT Press; USA.

Vidgen, R. and X. Wang. (2006). From business process management to business process ecosystem. Journal of Information Technology; Vol. 21; pp. 262-271.

Vogt, K.A., J.C. Gordon, J.P. Wargo, D.J. Vogt, H. Asbjornsen, P.A. Palmiotto, H.J. Clark, J.L. O’Hara, W.S. Keeton, T. Patel-Weynand, and E. Witten. (1997). Ecosystems: Balancing Science with Management. Springer; USA.

Waldrop, M.M. (1992). Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. Simon and Schuster; USA.

Waldrop, M.M. (1996). The trillion dollar vision of Dee Hock. Fast Company; October/November 1996.

Walker, B, and D. Salt. (2012). Resilience Practice: Building Capacity to Absorb Disturbance and Maintain Function. Island Press; USA.

Walker, B, and D. Salt. (2006). Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Island Press; USA.

Warfield, J.N. (1999). Twenty Laws of Complexity: Science Applicable in Organizations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science; Vol. 16; pp. 3-40.

Webb, C. (2016). How to Have a Good Day: Harness the Power of Behavioral Science to Transform Your Working Life. Crown Business; USA.

164

Weick, K.E. and K.M. Sutcliffe. (2007). Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty, 2nd Ed. John Wiley and Sons; USA.

Weiner, E. (2007). “Like Einstein, we should goof off more at work.” Special to the Los Angeles Times; as printed in the September 13, 2007 issue of The Tri-City Herald.

Weisbord, M. and S. Janoff. (2007). Don’t Just Do Something, Stand There! Ten Principles for Leading Meetings That Matter. Berrett-Koehler Publishers; San Francisco.

Weise, K. (2016). My, what great big symbolic value you have: A compromise between ranchers and conservationists to save wolves in Washington State is a real-life fable with a moral that might just solve America. Bloomberg Businessweek; pp. 54-61; Dec 26, 2016 – Jan 8, 2017.

Wessner, C. W. (2007). Innovation policies for the 21st century. Report of a Symposium. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press.

West, S.A., A.S. Griffin, A. Gardner, S.P. Diggle. (2006). Social evolution theory for microorganisms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol; Vol. 4; No. 8; pp. 597-607.

Wheatley, M.J. (2017). Who Do We Choose to Be? Facing Reality; Claiming Leadership; Restoring Sanity. Berrett-Koehler Publishers; USA.

Wheatley, M.J. (2012). So Far From Home: Lost and Found in Our Brave New World. Berrett- Koehler Publishers; USA.

Wheatley, M.J. (2006). Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World, 3rd Ed. Berrett-Koehler; USA.

Wheatley, M.J. and M. Kellner-Rogers. (1999). A Simpler Way. Berrett-Koehler Publishers; USA.

Whichard, J. and N.L. Kees. (2006). The Manager as Facilitator. Praeger Publishers; USA.

Whyte, W.H. (1956). The Organization Man. Doubleday; USA.

Whyte, W.H. (2009). City: Rediscovering the Center. University of Pennsylvania Press; Reissue edition; USA.

Wilson, E.O. (2012). The Social Conquest of Earth. Liveright (Norton); USA

Wilson, E.O. (1987). The little things that run the world: The importance and conservation of invertebrates. Conservation Biology; Vol. 1; pp. 344-346

165

Winn, M.I. and S. Pogutz. (2013). Business, ecosystems, and biodiversity: New horizons for management research. Organization and Environment; Vol. 26; No. 2; pp. 203-229

Winston, A. (2009). Use biomimcry to make better products (and companies). Harvard Business Review; May 7, 2009.

Winston, M.L. (2014). Bee Time: Lessons from the Hive. Harvard University; USA.

Wittbecker, A. (2006). Eutopias or Outopias: Choosing to Design and to Make Good Places. Urania Science Press; USA.

Wohlleben, P. (2016). The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate— Discoveries from a Secret World. Greystone Books; USA.

Womack, D. (2005). Project Platypus: Reinventing product development at Mattel. BusinessWeek; July 19. 2005.

Worster, D. (1977}. Nature’s Economy: The Roots of Ecology. Sierra Club; USA.

Wright, J.P., C.G. Jones, and A.S. Flecker. (2002). An ecosystem engineer, the beaver, increases species richness at the landscape scale. Oecologia (2002) Vol. 132; No. 96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-0929-1

Wulf, A. (2015). The Invention of Nature: The Adventures of Alexander Von Humboldt – The Lost Hero of Science. John Murray; United Kingdom.

Yawson, R.M. (2009). The ecological system of innovation: a new architectural framework for a functional evidence-based platform for science and innovation policy. XXIV ISPIM 2009 Conference: The Future of Innovation, Vienna, Austria, 1–16.

Young, L. (2016). The scientific squabble over the dodo tree: An extinct bird, an ailing tree, and a controversial hypothesis. May 20, 2016. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the- scientific-squabble-over-the-dodo-tree.

Yunlong, C. and B. Smit. (1994). Sustainability in agriculture: A general review. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment; Vol. 49; pp. 299-307.

Zimmerman, B., C. Lindberg, and P. Plsek. (1998). A complexity science primer: What is complexity science and why should I learn about it. Adapted from Edgeware: Lessons from Complexity Science for Health Care Leaders. www.napcrg.org/Beginner%20Complexity%20Science%20Module.pdf; Retrieved January 4, 2012.

166

Zolli, A. and A.M. Healy (2013). Resilience: Why Things Bounce Back. Simon and Schuster Paperbacks; USA.

Zukav, G. (1979) The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics. Bantam Books; USA.

167