September 2017, Volume 10, Issue 1 Received: 29 March 2017 Managing schools as complex adaptive Revised: 22 August 2017 systems: A strategic perspective Accepted: 12 Sept. 2017 ISSN: 1307-9298 Copyright © IEJEE a b Tuncer Fidan , Ali Balcı www.iejee.com DOI: 10.26822/iejee.2017131883 Abstract This conceptual study examines the analogies between schools and complex adaptive systems and identifies strategies used to manage schools as complex adaptive systems. Complex adaptive systems approach, introduced by the complexity theory, requires school administrators to develop new skills and strategies to realize their agendas in an ever-changing and complexifying environment without any expectations of stability and predictability. The results indicated that in this period administrators need to have basic skills such as (a) diagnosing patterns emerging from complexity, (b) manipulating the environment by anticipating potential patterns organizations may evolve into, (c) choosing organizational structures compatible with an ever-changing and complexifying environment and (d) promoting innovation to create and manage organizational changes. Although these skills enable administrators to reduce complexity into a manageable form to some extent, stakeholders’ having a common perspective regarding their schools and environments, and executing their activities in accordance with a shared vision are required to turn these skills into complexity management strategies. Keywords: Schools, complexity, complex adaptive systems, complexity management Introduction In the uncertain and constantly changing organizational Even scientists have not agreed on the definition of the environment of the information society, assumptions of term as complexity is a phenomenon arising from the order and predictability have gradually had a less part in interaction among numerous things (Johnson, 2007). administrators’ lives, since the relationships and the Hence, it seems likely to develop a general definition for course of events in social complex systems like schools complexity such as self-organization of components in are not linear. In school environments full of uncertainty mutual interaction as hierarchical systems in order to caused by numerous connections and various options, build potential forms (Curlee & Gordon, 2010). administrators cannot diagnose potential problems and The most widely used definition of complexity is the one opportunities by using traditional methods. It is almost developed by the Santa Fe group. According to this impossible to have control over a vast variety of results of definition, complexity refers to an integrated and at the organizational activities in an ocean of complex same time so rich and varied condition of the universe relationships. Therefore, it is a more proper approach to which we cannot comprehend in a usual mechanical way define schools as natural complex systems dominated by or in a linear fashion. It is of course likely to grasp many uncertainty, rather than as predictable ordered machines components of the universe through usual methods; (Mennin, 2010; Daft, 2016). With the widespread interest however, broader phenomena having more complex in the open systems approach, this new understanding interrelationships are likely to be understood only with has become prominent in organization theory and given a the help of principles and patterns. Thus, complexity new impulse to managerial studies (Lissack & Gunz, 1999; associates with emergence, innovativeness, learning and Simon, 1962; Von Bertalanffy, 1950). adaptation (Balcı, 2014; Sherman & Shultz, 1998). This conceptual study aims to discuss the analogies Complexity does not only refer to a number of moving between schools and complex adaptive systems and to components; on the contrary, it represents a system of identify strategies used to manage schools as complex components which interact mutually to the extent that it adaptive systems. The articles, working papers and books influences prospective events. Complex systems are in English on organizations and complex adaptive systems composed of a number of interconnected components published up to October 2016 were included and with characteristics such as self-organization, evolution reviewed to elicit the strategies for managing complexity. and novelty (Lissack & Gunz, 1999). Complexity Schools as Complex Adaptive Systems It is a difficult challenge to define the term complexity Organizations are open, social systems which endeavor to because of different definitions in various disciplines. a Corresponding author: Tuncer Fidan, Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Office of Internal Audits, İstiklal Campus, 15030, Burdur/TURKEY. E-mail: [email protected] b Ankara University, Department of Educational Administration, Ankara/ Turkey, E-mail: [email protected] © 2017 Published by T& K Academic. This is an open access article under the CC BY- NC- ND license. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) September 2017, Volume 10, Issue 1, 11-26 survive in contemporary, unpredictable environments. organization studies by emphasizing relationships Human resources, raw materials and financial sources between those components (Mitleton-Kelly, 2003). provided by the environment are transformed to Like other organizations educational organizations exhibit outcomes via technology. Complexity, in itself, associates characteristics of complex adaptive systems. At this point, with the number of different factors in external and Keshavarz, Nutbeam, Rowling and Khavarpour (2010) internal environments that organizations are obliged to state that understanding schools as social complex deal with at once. For this reason, the complexity of the adaptive systems may help education professionals to environment and technology determines complexity level explain some of the challenges of starting and sustaining of organizations (Daft, 2016, 129; Scott, 2003, 230-233). transformations in schools. Simon (1962) holds hierarchical organizations up as Complex adaptive systems like informal human examples of complex organizations. Hierarchy is a architecture of a school are self-organizing entities. The complex system built by interrelated sub-systems, systems without central control mechanisms are however in modern organizations, the hierarchical supposed to be dynamic and adaptive, not rigid and perspective is not satisfactory to define complexity. invariable. At this point, resistance of the term hierarchy Accordingly, Daft (2016, 18) mentions a three dimensional appears, since it is unlikely to discuss a world without complexity; vertical, horizontal and spatial. Vertical hierarchy when it comes to organizational structure. In complexity is the number of levels in a hierarchy while this context, hierarchy in complex adaptive systems is horizontal complexity means departments or professional almost inevitable to become shallow and flexible to allow expertises horizontally located in organizations. Spatial a space for innovation efforts (Cilliers, 2001). This fact also complexity associates with the geographical distribution leads complex adaptive systems away from Newtonian of organizational departments or staff (Daft, 2016). and Cartesian paradigm which assume that the natural On the other hand, Scott (2003) suggests an institutional condition of the system is equilibrium. Contemporary perspective to define complexity. According to Scott schools driven away from equilibrium to the edge of (2003, 230), tendency towards complexity can be chaos might build new relationship patterns and different examined at two levels: the first one is structural structures by being compelled to find out and try new complexity of technical core of organizations and opportunities (Fisher, 2006; Dooley, 1997; Mitleton-Kelly, associates with the nature of daily organizational 2003). activities. This level is caused by the impact of technology Self-organizing skills also reflect the development process on organizational structure. The complexity level of of complex adaptive systems. The results obtained in this technical core increases as the variety of machines, process depend on the past experiences, especially on information and methods employed to produce particular the previous accidents (Holling, 2001). In other words, outcomes increases. Complexity observed in the technical schools cannot escape from their past. They are deeply core complexifies organizational structure by causing new embedded in their external environment they interact units to emerge (Scott, 2003). The second level is the with and the history of this interaction affects their complexity of peripherical units at managerial and development. When a choice is made in a complex institutional levels apart from technical core. At this level, environment, the direction of the future evolution (or organizations start new units such as support staff and later choices) of a school might depend on that critical counselling to establish a buffer zone between their choice (Tsoukas & Dooley, 2011; Keshavarz, Nutbeam, technical cores and environmental factors such as Rowling and Khavarpour (2010). Moreover, tensions and isomorphic pressures at sector level and to establish alternative options emerged before the completion of the connections with other social institutions and choice process on the edge of chaos could become organizations (Scott, 2003). sources of innovation and differentiation (Uhl-Bien, However, defining contemporary organizations merely by Marion & McKelvey, 2007; Mitleton-Kelly,