You are hereDialogue - Narrative Blog / Aiden Choles's blog / Swarm theory - does it apply to humans?
Swarm theory - does it apply to humans?
"If you're looking for a role model in a world of complexity, you could do worse than to imitate a bee."
This is the end quote from an engaging National Geographic article on Swarm Theory. As the quote suggests, there's much to learn from the swarming habits of insects in terms of finding novel, effective and efficient solutions to complex problems. The technical term for this process is "self-organisation" and the encouragement is for managers to, in the face of complex problems, implement a self-organising management approach.
In our experience of speaking to leaders and managers about the complex problems they face, and in promoting the concepts of Thrive! Effective Adaption, the last thing managers want to hear about is implementing a laissez-faire management style. Their argument is this: how can I trust my people and organisation to self-organise in the most effective way? They then aslo add in this sentence, barely pausing for a breath, "It's like managing by not-managing!".
In many ways I would agree.
While promoting self-organisation in itself is not helpful nor digestible for managers in today's global economic context, there are components of self-organisation that WILL provide a way to thrive in tomorrow's world (which is probably already here!). There is a caveat we would add though ...
The caveat we would add is that a managers role in implementing self-organisation is not that you must simply take your hands off the problem and let it run it's course. Rather, the managers role is to create the parameters, boundaries and starting conditions in which self-organisation can flourish.
It is for this reason that we believe the metaphor by which managers should manage in today's world is that of a gardener: creating ecologies of influence. To embrace self-organisation, a manager needs a very deft approach to problems that encourages emergence and variety. In much the same way, a talented gardener will not manage the ecology by force, but rather will work with the natural forces at play, always establishing the boundaries and conditions by which the garden can thrive.
An example is how a gardener knows when to prune and when not to prune certain plants. Again, today's manager needs to know how to implement variant strategies and when to either amplify the results, or dampen them.
Thanks for raising this very interesting question. I would argue that swarm theory does not apply to humans, except in a very limited analogy.
2 points I would raise here. 1 is that humans are not bees - we differ from bees in very distinctive and significant ways - one is that we have human consciousness - because we can take the attitude of the other we can know what it is that we do, and we continuously adjust our interacting, and new patterns can emerge. Bees can only swarm. Humans can cooperate, go to war, kill or breed bees, develop new technology and so on. When we study bees, we are humans studying bees and so we stand outside the world of bees - we stand outside what we are studying. When we study humans, we are humans studying humans and so we cannot stand outside of our own human existence to study the human existence of others.
Secondly, we are all subject to self-organisation, whether or not we intend it to be so. Managers cannot "allow" self-organisation to take place. As you point out, self-organisation does not mean "anything goes," which is how the term is often translated when used (in a rather loose way) in management theory. Self-organisation in complexity has a very specific meaning, which is that global or population-wide patterns emerge from myriad local interactions in the absence of an overall blueprint or mastermind. So, human organisations and societies are self-organising in the sense that the dominance of certain civilisations, the power relations within our organisations and the way things work out happen as a result of the interweaving of the intentions of those involved. No one person, even the most powerful, can dictate the outcomes of social and organisational initiatives. This is because the outcomes of these initiatives are the result of how people respond to the actions of the powerful people - but the powerful people cannot control how others will respond.
Comment submitted by Stephen Billing - www.changingorganisations.com
I like this comment - BUT a problem i have (not with you, but the people i have to work with) is they don't understand what paramaters, boundaries and (sometimes) starting conditions mean.
Sounds hard to believe? Strue, ek sweeer. What other words can we use that are easier for people who have no management vocabularly to understand so they can grasp these important yet very simple concepts.
many thanks
Jonathan Carter twitter/jedcarter
A metaphor that we often use (that seems to resonate well) that explains the concepts of boundaries and atttractors (and I'm sure you could expand it to include starting conditions etc) is the concept of wells and fences. It's normally presented as a story of a Karoo farmer driving through the Australian Outback, noticing sheep farms, but no fences. He finds this rather strange and stops to enquiry about this from an Australian farmer. They guy's answer is that in Australia they don't need fences to keep their animals on their property, they sink wells.
So, clearly the analogy folllows that in SA, fences (external boundaries) are needed to keep your sheep where they should be, but in Australia, attractors do the job as the lack of water is a boundary in itself. Things like climate conditions, topography etc would denote starting conditions. I'm sure with a little thinking most concepts could be covered.
Great blog and thanks for twittering pointer to it. Having worked for a conservation organisation for many years they often describe a nature reserve that is too well managed as 'wildlife gardening', the point being that it is erring on the un-natural and is not always sustainable in the long term. I know it does not run off the tongue as well but perhaps the better metaphor is a 'nature reserve site manager' who encourages positive patterns and nips in the bud the negative ones while working with the starting conditions they find.
Cheers
Ron Don
http://rondon.wordpress.com/
Thanks for the comment Ron. Your suggestion is helpful having worked for our national parks board - they do not want to be known as gardeners :) Also, in South African, the term "gardener" is a fairly common one that refers to unskilled labour that is hired to mow the lawns and turn the flower beds - it is a problematic one for us, so suggestions on a better term are appreciated.